[Redacted], Jaqueline L., 1 Complainant,v.Louis DeJoy, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Headquarters), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Mar 31, 2021

Appeal No. 2019005037 (E.E.O.C. Mar. 31, 2021)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Jaqueline L.,1 Complainant, v. Louis DeJoy, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Headquarters), Agency. Request No. 2021000799 Appeal No. 2019005037 Agency No. 56-000-0006-15 DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION Complainant timely requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) reconsider its decision in EEOC Appeal No. 2019005037 (October 2, 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). During the pertinent period, Complainant worked as an Assistant Special-Agent-in-Charge at the Agency’s Office of Inspector General, Southern Area Field Office in Tallahassee, Florida. On September 25, 2015, Complainant filed a formal equal employment opportunity (EEO) complaint alleging, as amended, that the Agency subjected her to discrimination and harassment on the bases of race (African-American), sex (female), and in reprisal for protected EEO activity (instant EEO complaint) when: 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. 2021000799 2 1. on June 23, 2015, management accused Complainant of being unprofessional and causing a conflict, and subsequently instructed her to apologize for allegedly causing the conflict; 2. on June 29, 2015, management forced Complainant to cancel her approved leave to participate in a teleconference; 3. on June 29, and July 1, 2015, management failed to act after Complainant alleged that she was subjected to disparate treatment; 4. on September 17, 2015, management questioned Complainant for hours during a recorded investigative interview; 5. on November 3, 2015, management confirmed that Complainant would only receive a $1,000 award, which was lower than the amount she should have received; 6. on November 3, 2015, management failed to place Complainant in the top 5% for her accomplishments; 7. on November 10, 2015 and January 6, 2016, while Complainant was out on medical leave, she received emails attempting to schedule her for a kalkines interview; 8. on January 11, 2016, while Complainant was on Family and Medical Leave Act leave, management contacted her to inquire about her return-to- work status and informed her that she needed to return her work equipment (firearm, computer, cell phone, and vehicle); and 9. about February 10, 2016, management issued Complainant a notice of “Non-Voluntary Removal from [Law Enforcement Availability Premium] LEAP.” Following an EEO investigation, the Agency informed Complainant of the right to request a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). Initially, Complainant requested a hearing, but later withdrew her request and asked for an immediate final agency decision. The Agency issued a final decision finding no discrimination. Complainant filed an appeal with this Commission, which was docketed as EEOC Appeal No. 2019005037. On October 2, 2020, the Commission issued a decision in Appeal No. 2019005037, finding no discrimination was establlished. The instant request for reconsideration from Complainant followed. In her request, Complainant stated that she has “newly discovered evidence” from five witnesses that rebuts the statements provided by Agency witnesses. Complainant stated that the witnesses did not come forward before because they were not aware of her need for the information or feared reprisal from the Agency. The statements allege a history of adverse actions by Agency management due to discriminatory motives, lack of integrity, and bullying. In opposition, the Agency stated that Complainant does not satisfy the reconsideration request criteria and is trying to file a second appeal. The Agency stated that Complainant submitted said statements for credibility determinations, but did not avail herself of a hearing before an EEOC AJ, which is where such determinations would be made. 2021000799 3 We emphasize that a request for reconsideration is not a second appeal to the Commission. See EEO Management Directive 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. Complainant has not established that these statements could not have been gathered and submitted during her original appeal. 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. 2019005037 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. 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 31, 2021 Date