[Redacted], Ciera B., 1 Complainant,v.Louis DeJoy, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Apr 20, 2022

Appeal No. 2020003982 (E.E.O.C. Apr. 20, 2022)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Ciera B.,1 Complainant, v. Louis DeJoy, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency. Request No. 2021000700 Appeal No. 2020003982 Agency No. 4F-913-0014-17 DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION Complainant timely requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) reconsider its decision in EEOC Appeal No. 2020003982 (Oct. 7, 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). At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a City Carrier at the Agency’s facility in Reseda, California. On February 25, 2017, Complainant filed a formal equal employment opportunity (EEO) complaint alleging that the Agency subjected her to discrimination on the basis of disability and reprisal for prior EEO activity when the District Reasonable Accommodation Committee and the Human Resources Manager denied her requests for reasonable accommodation. At the conclusion of the investigation, Complainant timely filed a hearing request before an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Administrative Judge (AJ). 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. 2021000700 2 On September 28, 2018, Complainant filed a Motion for Sanctions against the Agency for barring her attendance during the depositions. Shortly after, Complainant filed an appeal with the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB). On October 15, 2018, while her MSPB appeal was pending, the AJ granted Complainant’s Motion for Sanctions. On October 16, 2018, the Agency filed a Motion to Dismiss, identifying Complainant’s MSPB appeal, and objecting to the AJ’s order on sanctions. On December 19, 2018, the AJ granted Complainant’s Motion on Sanctions. At the same time, the AJ also suspended the case pending the outcome of the MSPB case. On May 19, 2020, after an extensive procedural history at the hearing stage, the AJ issued a decision granting the Agency’s Motion to Dismiss after finding that the claims had already been adjudicated with the MSPB. The AJ’s Order did not address the sanctions matter. Complainant sought clarification with the AJ regarding the sanctions matter. On May 22, 2020, the AJ issued an Addendum to the May 19, 2020, Order and Decision (Addendum). In the Addendum, the AJ stated that since he had already dismissed the entirety of the complaint, he would not address the sanctions issue. Instead, the AJ stated that any discussion regarding sanctions could be addressed with the Commission. On May 26, 2020, pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.107(a)(4), the Agency implemented the AJ’s dismissal. Complainant appealed that decision and asked to consolidate the appeal with her EEOC petition appealing the MSPB’s decision, docketed as EEOC Petition No. 2020003570. In EEOC Appeal No. 2020003982, the subject of the instant Request For Reconsideration (RFR), the appellate decision determined that the record was clear that Complainant filed an MSPB appeal on the same matters - denial of reasonable accommodation. Based on the record, the appellate decision affirmed the May 26, 2020, final agency decision dismissing the EEO complaint. On November 5, 2020, Complainant submitted her RFR wherein she requests that the Commission revisit its prior decision in EEOC Appeal No. 2020003982 and incorporate an order on sanctions. Alternatively, Complainant requests that the Commission address the sanctions issue in a separate decision or address the matter in EEOC Petition No. 2020003570. In support of her RFR, Complainant argues that the appellate decision clearly made an erroneous interpretation of law to the extent that it implicitly held that Complainant’s entitlement to sanctions was extinguished by the AJ’s May 19, 2020, dismissal. Complainant argues that because the AJ preserved the issue in the Addendum, she was entitled to sanctions even though her case was dismissed. We find upon review that, in his May 19, 2020, decision, the AJ did not repeat, nor address, his earlier October 15, 2018, sanctions order. When the Agency issued its final decision it also made no reference to the sanctions order. Contrary to Complainant’s arguments, the AJ did not preserve any order on sanctions in his Addendum. The AJ merely stated that any discussion regarding sanctions could be addressed later. Here, the AJ’s sanctions order was never finalized in his dismissal order or by the Agency in its final decision. Accordingly, any request to revive the AJ’s order is moot. 2021000700 3 See Otis B. v. Soc. Sec. Admin., EEOC Appeal No. 0120180819 (Mar. 12, 2020) (because the AJ never finalized an interim order that directed the agency to pay complainant attorney's fees related to a sanctions motion, there was no final order from the AJ to enforce); see also Jaleesa P. v. Dep’t of Energy, EEOC Appeal No. 2019000491 (Dec. 7, 2020) (the AJ's order for attorney’s fees and costs ordered as a sanction was an interim order and never finalized by the AJ in his dismissal, and as a result there was no current order before the Commission on appeal). The appellate decision in EEOC Appeal No. 2020003982 appropriately affirmed the Agency’s final decision, and determined that any issues regarding the merits of Complainant’s reasonable accommodation would be addressed in EEOC Petition No. 2020003570. 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. 2020003982 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. 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. 2021000700 4 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 April 20, 2022 Date