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

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Nov 2, 2022

Appeal No. 2021003425 (E.E.O.C. Nov. 2, 2022)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Zoie C.,1 Complainant, v. Louis DeJoy, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency. Request No. 2022001049 Appeal No. 2021003425 Hearing No. 480-2021-00047X Agency No. 4E-890-0038-20 DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION On December 16, 2021, Complainant timely requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) reconsider its decision in EEOC Appeal No. 2021003425 (Dec. 2, 2021). EEOC regulations state the Commission may, in its discretion, grant a request to reconsider any previous Commission decision issued per 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. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.405(c). Complainant alleged she was subjected to discrimination and harassment based on her race and reprisal for prior protected EEO activity when on: (1) February 10 & 11, 2020, her manager entered her personal space, humiliated, and intimidated her, (2) February 29, 2020, she was given an investigative interview and then issued a 7-day suspension on March 25, 2020, and (3) on July 17, 2020, she was put on emergency placement in an off-duty status without pay, effectively denying her a reasonable accommodation. 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. 2022001049 2 In EEOC Appeal No. 2021003425, we affirmed the Agency’s final decision (“FAD”) finding no discrimination and harassment. The record revealed that Complainant was subjected to an investigative interview and, subsequently, issued a suspension (claim 2) because she failed to follow instructions to deliver assigned parcels and she had a verbal altercation with a supervisor. It appeared on appeal, regarding claim 3, that Complainant alleged the Agency violated Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended,2 when she was placed in an off-duty status for not wearing a mask. Complainant submitted a doctor’s note stating that, because of her respiratory conditions, she must remove her mask during “flare-ups.” However, there was no evidence Complainant asserted she was having a flare-up when she was not wearing a mask or that she informed the Agency/supervisor of this. Complainant failed to prove any of the incidents in her complaint were motivated by discrimination or retaliation. The instant request for reconsideration followed. Complainant attempts to introduce new evidence she purports shows her manager is not credible. While this new evidence was not previously available, it is not material. Additionally, we find Complainant’s request contains arguments that were, or should have been raised on appeal. A request for reconsideration is not a second appeal to the Commission. EEOC Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive for 29 C.F.R. Part 1614, at Chap. 9.VII.A, p. 9-18 (REV. Aug. 5, 2015). Complainant argues that our previous decision did not consider claim 1. We disagree. In the FAD, at pages 20 - 21, the Agency determined that the record did not reflect that the manager entered Complainant’s personal space, humiliated and intimidated her as alleged and, based on this, she did not prove she was harassed. We found no discrimination on the entire complaint, which includes allegation 1, and affirmed the FAD. Regarding claim 3, Complainant argues the Commission improperly assumed there was no evidence that she failed to assert she was having a flare-up. The Human Resources Manager, who the manager consulted before putting Complainant on Emergency Placement in an off-duty status, stated that Complainant was on the workroom floor without a mask and when she instructed to wear one, Complainant replied that she submitted medical documentation excusing her from wearing a mask during a flare-up. Complainant was asked or reminded she could wear a face shield instead, and she refused. The Human Resources Manager stated Complainant’s medical documentation only stated she should not wear face mask during a flare up (as opposed to a face shield), and she was put in off-duty status because not wearing a mask or face shield put other employees at risk and violated Agency guidelines. Based on these statements, Complainant has not shown that the previous decision’s finding of no discrimination involved a clearly erroneous interpretation of material fact or law. 2 29 U.S.C. § 791 et seq. 2022001049 3 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. 2021003425 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 November 2, 2022 Date