Tod P.,1 Complainant,v.Megan J. Brennan, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Pacific Area), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Jul 14, 2017

0520170252 (E.E.O.C. Jul. 14, 2017)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013

Tod P.,1
Complainant,

v.

Megan J. Brennan,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Pacific Area),
Agency.

Request No. 0520170252

Appeal No. 0120150449

Hearing No. 480-2013-00163X

Agency No. 4F-926-0136-12

DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

Complainant timely requested reconsideration of the decision in EEOC Appeal No. 0120150449
(February 14, 2017). EEOC Regulations provide that the Commission may, in its discretion,
grant a request to reconsider any previous Commission decision 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).

In his underlying complaint, Complainant claimed that he was discriminated against on the basis
of his sex (male) when on April 9, 2012, he was not selected for a lateral position, the
Huntington Beach Supervisor Customer Service Support #0341-6031 position.

The EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ) granted the Agency’s Motion for a Decision Without a
Hearing. The AJ found that no discrimination occurred. The AJ stated that Complainant was not

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.
0520170252

2
selected because he lacked experience and knowledge with certain requirements of the position.
In its final order, the Agency implemented the AJ’s Decision.

On appeal, the Commission affirmed the Agency’s final order. We found that the evidence
supported the AJ’s conclusion that Complainant failed to demonstrate that the Agency’s
legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for his non-selection were pretext for discrimination.

In his request for reconsideration, Complainant contends that he was qualified for the position
based on the position description. Complainant argues that he only received a telephone
interview in contrast to the other candidates who had an in-person interview. Complainant
maintains that he has performed the duties of the position at issue on several occasions for
extended periods.

The Commission emphasizes 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 presented any evidence to support reconsideration of the
Commission’s decision. Complainant has failed to establish that his qualifications for the
position at issue met the requisite criteria, or that he was demonstrably superior to the selectee.
Complainant has not demonstrated that the Agency’s explanation for his non-selection was
pretext intended to hide discriminatory intent.

Additionally, we note that Complainant claimed in his request for reconsideration that during
discovery in the hearing process, he had requested the application packages and interview notes
of the other candidates for the position, but did not receive those from the Agency. We find that
those documents were contained in the report of investigation, and as such were already
available to Complainant.

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. 0120150449 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
0520170252

3
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

July 14, 2017
Date