Rosendo F.,1 Complainant,v.Megan J. Brennan, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Pacific Area), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Aug 7, 2018

0520180262 (E.E.O.C. Aug. 7, 2018)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013

Rosendo F.,1
Complainant,

v.

Megan J. Brennan,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Pacific Area),
Agency.

Request No. 0520180262

Appeal No. 0120180493

Agency No. 4F-920-0152-17

DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

Complainant timely requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or
Commission) reconsider its decision in EEOC Appeal No. 0120180493 (February 9, 2018). EEOC
Regulations provide that the Commission may, in its discretion, grant a request to reconsider any
previous Commission decision issued pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.405(a), where the requesting
party demonstrates that: (1) the appellate decision involved a clearly erroneous interpretation of
material fact or law; or (2) the appellate decision will have a substantial impact on the policies,
practices, or operations of the agency. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.405(c).

In his underlying complaint, Complainant, a Postal Support Employee Clerk, claimed that he was
discriminated against on the basis of unfairness when he learned on September 14, 2016, after
speaking with the Acting Plant Manager, that his seniority date was incorrect and had never been
corrected. Complainant further claimed that due to his seniority date being incorrectly reported,
coworkers hired after him were converted to career status.

1 This case has been randomly assigned a pseudonym which will replace Complainant’s name
when the decision is published to non-parties and the Commission’s website.
0520180262

2
In its final decision, the Agency dismissed the complaint pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.107(a)(2)
on the grounds that Complainant failed to initiate contact with an EEO Counselor in a timely
manner.

On appeal, the Commission affirmed the Agency’s dismissal of the complaint. The Commission
found that the alleged discriminatory event occurred on September 14, 2016, but Complainant did
not initiate contact with an EEO Counselor until June 20, 2017, which is beyond the 45-day
limitation period. The Commission found that Complainant did not provide adequate justification
for extending the 45-day limitation period.

In his request for reconsideration, Complainant argues that the most recent discrimination occurred
on May 27, 2017, which therefore makes his June 20, 2017 EEO contact timely. Complainant
states that on May 27, 2017, he was skipped for coming back to work when he was supposed to,
and therefore he lost his seniority.

We observe that Complainant has not presented sufficient persuasive evidence in support of his
position. The Commission emphasizes that a request for reconsideration is not a second appeal to
the Commission. Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive for 29 C.F.R. Part 1614
(EEO MD-110), at 9-18 (Aug. 5, 2015); see, e.g., Lopez v. Dep't of Agric., EEOC Request No.
0520070736 (Aug. 20, 2007). Rather, a reconsideration request is an opportunity to demonstrate
that the appellate decision involved a clearly erroneous interpretation of material fact or law, or
will have a substantial impact on the policies, practices, or operations of the Agency. Complainant
has not done so here. The record reveals that Complainant initially learned on September 14, 2016,
that his seniority date was incorrect. Complainant subsequently filed grievances concerning this
matter but he did not initiate the EEO process until June 20, 2017, which was after the expiration
of the 45-day limitation period. We discern no persuasive argument or evidence in Complainant’s
request for reconsideration that satisfy the criteria for granting a request to reconsider.

After reviewing the previous decision and the entire record, the Commission finds that the request
fails to meet the criteria of 29 C.F.R. § 1614.405(c), and it is the decision of the Commission to
deny the request. The decision in EEOC Appeal No. 0120180493 remains the Commission's
decision. There is no further right of administrative appeal on the decision of the Commission on
this request.

COMPLAINANT’S RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (P0610)

This decision of the Commission is final, and there is no further right of administrative appeal
from the Commission’s decision. You have the right to file a civil action in an appropriate United
States District Court within ninety (90) calendar days from the date that you receive this decision.
If you file a civil action, you must name as the defendant in the complaint the person who is the
official Agency head or department head, identifying that person by his or her full name and
official title. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of your case in court. “Agency” or
“department” means the national organization, and not the local office, facility or department in
which you work.
0520180262

3

RIGHT TO REQUEST COUNSEL (Z0815)

If you want to file a civil action but cannot pay the fees, costs, or security to do so, you may request
permission from the court to proceed with the civil action without paying these fees or costs.
Similarly, if you cannot afford an attorney to represent you in the civil action, you may request the
court to appoint an attorney for you. You must submit the requests for waiver of court costs or
appointment of an attorney directly to the court, not the Commission. The court has the sole
discretion to grant or deny these types of requests. Such requests do not alter the time limits for
filing a civil action (please read the paragraph titled Complainant’s Right to File a Civil Action for
the specific time limits).

FOR THE COMMISSION:

______________________________ Carlton M. Hadden’s signature
Carlton M. Hadden, Director
Office of Federal Operations

August 7, 2018
Date