U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Anna D.,1
Complainant,
v.
Megan J. Brennan,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Capital Metro Area),
Agency.
Request No. 2020001909
Appeal No. 2019001531
Hearing No. 430-2016-00207X
Agency No. 1K-23-10070-15
DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
Complainant timely requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or
Commission) reconsider its decision in Anna D. v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No.
2019001531 (Nov. 8, 2019). 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).
Complainant, a Mail Handler at the Agency's Richmond, Virginia Processing and Distribution
Center, filed an EEO complaint in which she claimed that the Agency discriminated against her
on the bases of race (African-American), sex (female), disability, age (over 40), and in reprisal for
prior EEO activity 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.
20200019092
1. On May 7, 2015, she was subjected to a Pre-Disciplinary Interview;
2. On May 7, 2015, and other dates, she was subjected to observation by her supervisor
on the workroom floor;
3. On May 27, 2015, she was assigned to a work area that she believed to be unsafe;
4. On May 30, 2015, her supervisor instructed a co-worker not to speak with her;
5. On an unspecified date, she was issued a Letter of Warning; and
6. On an unspecified date, the lock was removed that secured the chair she used to perform
her duties.
Following an investigation, Complainant requested a hearing before an EEOC Administrative
Judge (AJ). The AJ assigned to the matter issued a summary judgment decision in the Agency’s
favor finding no discrimination or reprisal. The Agency thereupon issued its final order fully
implementing the AJ’s decision, and following Complainant’s appeal, the Commission affirmed.
In our appellate decision, we found that the officials named in the complaint had articulated
legitimate and non-discriminatory reasons for each of the incidents at issue, and that Complainant
had not presented evidence sufficient to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether any of
those officials were motivated by an unlawful discriminatory or retaliatory animus.
The Commission emphasizes that a request for reconsideration is not a second appeal. Equal
Employment Opportunity Management Directive for 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 (EEO MD-110), at 9-18
(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. She has not presented any argument or evidence tending to establish the existence
of either reconsideration criterion. While she frames her arguments in terms of those criteria, she
is merely attempting to relitigate her appeal on the merits, raising contentions very similar to those
that we considered and rejected in our previous decision.
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. 2019001531 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.
20200019093
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
September 2, 2020
Date
