Tyree R.,1 Complainant,v.Megan J. Brennan, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Headquarters), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Aug 15, 2019

2019003193 (E.E.O.C. Aug. 15, 2019)

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

Tyree R.,1
Complainant,

v.

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

Request No. 2019003193

Appeal No. 2019001151

Hearing No. 430-2017-00196X

Agency No. 4V-712-0006-16

DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

Complainant timely requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or
Commission) reconsider its decision in Tyree R. v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No.
2019001151 (Apr. 4, 2019). 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).

Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging the Agency discriminated against him on the basis
of race (white) and sex (male) when, on August 25, 2016 and other dates, Complainant worked
beyond his medical restrictions.

Following an investigation, Complainant requested a hearing before an EEOC Administrative
Judge (AJ). The AJ assigned to the case granted the Agency’s unopposed motion for summary

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.
2019003193

2
judgment and found that Complainant had not been subjected to discrimination as alleged. The
Agency subsequently issued a final order fully implementing the AJ’s decision.

In our appellate decision affirming the final order, the Commission noted that the analysis was
limited to whether the Agency discriminated against Complainant on the bases he alleged – race
(white) or sex (male). The Commission determined that the Agency provided legitimate, non-
discriminatory reasons for its actions. Specifically, Complainant provided medical documentation
that did not adequately describe what limitations, if any, he had. Once he provided additional,
clarifying documentation, the Agency provided Complainant with modified job duties.
Complainant failed to demonstrate, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the Agency’s
explanations were pretext for discriminatory animus.

In his request for reconsideration, Complainant maintains that his supervisor ignored the notes
provided by his doctor and forced him to work beyond his restrictions. Complainant also alleges
that his supervisor refused to give him the proper forms until August 31, 2016. When he received
the Form CA-17 from his supervisor, Complainant’s doctor provided the necessary medical
restrictions.

The Commission emphasizes that a request for reconsideration is not a second appeal to the
Commission. EEO MD-110, at 9-18; 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. Complainant has presented no evidence to support reconsideration of the
Commission's finding that the Agency articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its
actions which Complainant failed to show were pretextual. As such, Complainant has not put forth
any persuasive arguments to support granting the request for reconsideration.

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. 2019001151 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
2019003193

3
“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

August 15, 2019
Date