Darell B.,1 Complainant,v.Megan J. Brennan, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Eastern Area), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Oct 11, 2019

2019003374 (E.E.O.C. Oct. 11, 2019)

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