Wilfredo B.,1 Complainant,v.Megan J. Brennan, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Pacific Area), Agency.Download PDFEqual Employment Opportunity CommissionOct 31, 20180520180508 (E.E.O.C. Oct. 31, 2018) Copy Citation U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Wilfredo B.,1 Complainant, v. Megan J. Brennan, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Pacific Area), Agency. Request No. 0520180508 Appeal No. 0120180818 Agency No. 4F926024213 DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION Complainant timely requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) reconsider its decision in EEOC Appeal No. 0120180818 (June 15, 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). On September 30, 2013, Complainant filed a formal complaint alleging that the Agency discriminated against him based on race (African-American), sex (male), religion (Muslim), and color (black) when, on April 5, 2012, he was subjected to questioning by the Postal Inspector regarding mail left on his mail delivery route, which led him to being placed in an emergency placement status and subsequently issued a notice of Removal on June 20, 2012. The Agency dismissed initially dismissed the complaint which included an additional claim. However, on May 16, 2014, the Commission issued a decision in Complainant v. U.S. Postal Serv., 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. 0520180508 2 EEOC Appeal No. 0120140532, in which the Commission affirmed the Agency’s dismissal of one claim and reversed and remanded another claim for further processing. Following an investigation of Complainant’s remaining claim, Complainant requested a hearing. The EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ) assigned to the matter granted the Agency’s motion for summary judgment and issued a decision adopting the Agency’s statement of undisputed facts. The AJ concluded that the Agency articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions, and that Complainant provided no arguments or evidence in rebuttal. The Agency subsequently issued a final order fully implementing the AJ’s decision. Complainant appealed and, in Wilfredo B. v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No. 0120180818 (June 15, 2018), the Commission affirmed the Agency’s final order. In his request for reconsideration, Complainant recites a litany of federal regulations as well as the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Complainant also complains that he was unable to question witnesses during the investigation or the hearing into his complaint and argues that the evidence does not demonstrate that his termination was proper. 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). A request for reconsideration is not the time for Complainant to raise new evidence or new arguments. 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. The Commission finds that the arguments raised by Complainant in the instant request for reconsideration do not demonstrate that the Commission’s earlier 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’s request does not even address the Commission’s previous decision, but rather argues that other federal regulations and the Sixth Amendment apply to his case. None of the cited regulations apply to the processing of a Federal EEO complaint nor is the Commission the proper forum in which to allege Sixth Amendment violations. 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. 0120180818 remains the Commission's decision. There is no further right of administrative appeal on the decision of the Commission on this request. 0520180508 3 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. 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 October 31, 2018 Date Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation