[Redacted], Adele I., 1 Complainant,v.Louis DeJoy, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Capital Metro Area), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Mar 30, 2021

Appeal No. 2020003108 (E.E.O.C. Mar. 30, 2021)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Adele I.,1 Complainant, v. Louis DeJoy, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Capital Metro Area), Agency. Request No. 2021001666 Appeal No. 2020003108 Hearing No. 430-2019-00224X Agency No. 4K-230-0164-18 DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION Complainant timely requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) reconsider its decision in EEOC Appeal No. 2020003108 (November 17, 2020). 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 was employed as a Lead Sales and Service Associate at the Driver Station in Suffolk, Virginia. Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging she was discriminated against and subjected to harassment on the basis of race (Black) when: 1. After reporting that customers have cursed at her, made sexual advances toward her, and/or made racist comments, management failed to properly address her issues; 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. 2021001666 2 2. She has not been permitted to leave one station to take care of business at another station; 3. On or about July 25, 2018, management stated she was not performing her duties; and 4. On or about July 17, 2018, she was subjected to a pre-disciplinary interview. Our prior appellate decision affirmed the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Administrative Judge’s (AJ) decision by summary judgment which found in favor of the Agency, concluding Complainant failed to prove her discrimination claims. In the decision, the AJ found that Complainant failed to produce evidence that the Agency’s reasons for its actions were a pretext for discrimination. In her request for reconsideration, Complainant expresses her disagreement with the previous decision. Complainant also argues that the Agency violated a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) under the collective bargaining agreement. However, even if the Agency violated the terms of the MOU, that alone is not dispositive of her discrimination claim. To prove her claim of discriminatory harassment, Complainant must establish that she was subjected to conduct that was either so severe or so pervasive that a “reasonable person” in Complainant’s position would have found the conduct to be hostile or abusive. Complainant must also prove that the conduct was taken because of a protected basis - in this case, her race. Only if Complainant establishes both of those elements - hostility and motive - will the question of Agency liability present itself. Here, our prior decision concluded that the evidence of record failed to establish Complainant’s race motivated the disputed actions. We emphasize that a request for reconsideration is not a second appeal to the Commission. See EEO MD-110, Ch. 9, § VII.A. 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. 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. 2020003108 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. 2021001666 3 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 March 30, 2021 Date