Laurence L.,1 Complainant,v.Megan J. Brennan, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Oct 3, 2019

2019004257 (E.E.O.C. Oct. 3, 2019)

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

Laurence L.,1
Complainant,

v.

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

Request No. 2019004257

Appeal No. 2019000894

Hearing No. 410-2017-00445X

Agency No. 4K-300-0078-14

DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

Complainant timely requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or
Commission) reconsider its decision in Laurence L. v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No.
2019000894 (Apr. 19, 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 Rural Carrier Associate at the Agency’s Post Office
in Stockbridge, Georgia, claimed that he was discriminated against on the bases of his race
(Caucasian), sex (male), disability (broken foot) and age (over 40) when:

1. Beginning on or around November 29, 2013 through February 28, 2014, Complainant
was not paid continuation of pay correctly or in a timely manner;

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.
2019004257

2
2. On December 3, 2013, Complainant was told not to return to work because there was
no work available within his medical restrictions; and

3. On December 20, 2013, Complainant was issued a Letter of Warning and his request
for advanced pay was denied.

In a partial dismissal dated November 10, 2014, the Agency accepted claims (2) and (3) for
investigation and dismissed claim (1) pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.107(a)(1) on the grounds of
failure to state a claim. Following an investigation, Complainant requested a hearing before an
EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). On September 25, 2018, the AJ issued a summary judgment
decision in favor of the Agency finding that Complainant had not been subjected to discrimination
as alleged. In its final order, the Agency implemented the AJ’s decision.

On appeal, the Commission affirmed the Agency’s final order. We noted that it was undisputed
that due to his medical restrictions, Complainant was unable to perform the essential functions of
his Rural Carrier Associate position with or without accommodations. We stated that the record
did not establish that there was a vacant funded position for which Complainant was qualified and
to which he could have been reassigned. We observed that Complainant sought to be
accommodated by answering telephones and performing clerical work, but we found there was not
sufficient evidence that such work was available at the time. We further found that Complainant
failed to establish that the Agency’s proffered reasons for its actions were a pretext for
discrimination. Finally, we noted that Complainant did not challenge the dismissal of claim (1).

In his request for reconsideration, Complainant largely reiterates contentions made and fully
considered on appeal. 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), at 9-18 (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. Upon review of Complainant’s request for reconsideration, we find that
Complainant has presented no evidence to support reconsideration of the Commission's finding
that Complainant failed to show that the Agency denied him reasonable accommodation and that
the Agency articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions which Complainant
failed to show were pretextual. We discern no persuasive argument or evidence in Complainant’s
request for reconsideration that satisfies the criteria for granting his request to reconsider.

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. 2019000894 remains the Commission's
decision. There is no further right of administrative appeal on the decision of the Commission on
this request.

2019004257

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 3, 2019
Date