[Redacted], Shad R., 1 Complainant,v.Louis DeJoy, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Field Areas and Regions), Agency.Download PDFEqual Employment Opportunity CommissionFeb 22, 2022Appeal No. 2021003282 (E.E.O.C. Feb. 22, 2022) Copy Citation U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Shad R.,1 Complainant, v. Louis DeJoy, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Field Areas and Regions), Agency. Request No. 2021004894 Appeal No. 2021003282 Agency No. 4E-800-0106-20 DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION Complainant timely requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) reconsider its decision in EEOC Appeal No. 2021003282 (August 9, 2021). 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 relevant time, Complainant worked as a Supervisor, Customer Service, E-17, at the Agency’s Post Office in Casper, Wyoming. Complainant filed a formal complaint, claiming discrimination based on race, sex, color, age, genetic information, and in reprisal for prior protected activity. Complainant alleged that he was not interviewed for the position of Supervisor, Maintenance Operations, and received a Letter of Warning in Lieu of 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. 2021004894 2 The Agency issued a decision dismissing both claims. In so doing, the Agency found that the record showed that Complainant had raised the matter of not being interviewed for the Supervisor position at issue in a prior complaint that Complainant withdrew after mediation. The Agency also found that Complainant’s claim regarding the Letter of Warning was untimely, as it was initially raised with an EEO Counselor at least 109 days after it was issued, which was well beyond the applicable 45-day time period. Complainant appealed. In EEOC Appeal No. 2021003282, the Commission affirmed the Agency’s dismissal of the complaint, agreeing the Agency’s reasons. In the instant request for reconsideration, we have carefully reviewed Complainant’s arguments. We have determined that, to the extent Complainant has submitted materials and arguments addressing the merits of these and other claims, they fail to address the reasons for the dismissal of the complaint at issue. To the extent that Complainant has submitted evidence and arguments in support of the instant request for reconsideration of the dismissal of his complaint, we have determined that the matters either were raised or could have been raised below. We note that during the original appeal from the Agency’s final order, Complainant presented evidence and/or arguments, many of which have been replicated in the instant request. We emphasize that a request for reconsideration is not a second appeal to the Commission. 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. 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. 2021003282 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. 2021004894 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 February 22, 2022 Date Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation