Roxanna B.,1 Complainant,v.Megan J. Brennan, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Great Lakes Area), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Feb 2, 2018

0520170564 (E.E.O.C. Feb. 2, 2018)

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

Roxanna B.,1
Complainant,

v.

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

Request No. 0520170564

Appeal No. 0120152793

Agency No. 1J-632-0008-14

DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

Complainant timely requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or
Commission) reconsider its decision in EEOC Appeal No. 0120152793 (August 15, 2017).
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 her underlying complaint, Complainant claimed that she was discriminated against on the
bases of her sex (female), religion (Saved/Holiness) and in reprisal for her prior EEO activity
when on March 24, 2014, she submitted a PS Form 991 “Application for Promotion or
Assignment” to her Manager, seeking a Mail Flow Controller position, and her application
and/or requests to be trained were ignored.

The Agency determined that no discrimination occurred. The Agency stated that Complainant
was not selected for training for or placement into the position of Mail Flow Controller because

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.
0520170564

2
she was not in the clerk craft and only members of the clerk craft were eligible. On appeal, the
Commission affirmed the Agency’s final decision.

In her request for reconsideration, Complainant contends that she should have been chosen for a
Mail Flow Controller position during the period of December 2, 2013 – April 2014.
Complainant maintains that the position had been open to applicants from outside the clerk craft.
Complainant argues that the Lead Manager, Distribution Operations, accepted several employees
outside the clerk craft for training.

In response, the Agency asserts that Complainant applied for a position that was rescinded
pursuant to a union grievance and settlement on May 9, 2014. The Agency notes that
Complainant did not apply when the new job posting was posted. The Agency states that
Complainant’s eligibility for the Mail Flow Controller position was outside the Lead Manager’s
control. The Agency asserts that as an employee of the Maintenance craft, Complainant was not
eligible to apply for the vacancy as the national guidance specifically states that only clerks can
apply.

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), Chap. 9 § VI.A (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 presented any persuasive evidence to support reconsideration of
the Commission’s decision. Complainant has failed to establish that the Agency’s reasons for not
accepting her application for training or promotion were pretext intended to hide discriminatory
motivation.

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. 0120152793 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.
0520170564

3
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.

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

February 2, 2018
Date