Darell B.,1 Complainant,v.Megan J. Brennan, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Eastern Area), Agency.Download PDFEqual Employment Opportunity CommissionOct 11, 20192019003374 (E.E.O.C. Oct. 11, 2019) Copy Citation U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Darell B.,1 Complainant, v. Megan J. Brennan, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Eastern Area), Agency. Request No. 2019003374 Appeal No. 2019001150 Agency No. 4C450006716 DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION Complainant timely requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) reconsider its decision in Darell B. v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No. 2019001150 (Mar. 15, 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). In his underlying complaint, Complainant, a Full-Time City Carrier at the Agency's Post Office in Westerville, Ohio, alleged that the Agency subjected him to unlawful discrimination on the bases of on race (African-American), sex (male), color (black), age, and in reprisal for prior protected EEO activity when: 1. On April 2, 2016, Complainant was put on Emergency Placement; and 2. On May 2, 2016, Complainant was issued a 14-Day Suspension. 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. 2019003374 2 Following an investigation, Complainant requested a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). The AJ assigned to the matter issued a summary judgment decision finding that Complainant was not subjected to discrimination or reprisal. In its final order, the AJ fully implemented that AJ’s decision. On appeal, the Commission affirmed the Agency’s final order, finding that the Complainant’s claims were not supported by the record evidence and that he did not prove that the Agency’s reasons for issuing discipline were a pretext designed to conceal discriminatory or retaliatory animus. In his request for reconsideration, Complainant contests some of the Agency’s evidence about the misbehavior of which he was charged but does not dispute the Agency’s central factual contention that he engaged in a heated confrontation with his supervisor. Having failed to controvert the Agency’s evidence on this issue, Complainant is unable to show that a genuine issue of material fact exists or that a hearing was necessary here. The Commission emphasizes that a request for reconsideration is not a second appeal. 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 done so here. We find that Complainant’s arguments do not 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. Accordingly, we find that Complainant has failed to demonstrate that the Commission should reconsider its appellate decision. 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. 2019001150 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. 2019003374 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 October 11, 2019 Date Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation