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

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Aug 12, 2020

2020001689 (E.E.O.C. Aug. 12, 2020)

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

Alex L.,1
Complainant,

v.

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

Request No. 2020001689

Appeal No. 2019002464

Hearing Nos. 480-2017-00167X & 480-2017-00640X

Agency Nos. 1F-901-0081-16 & 1F-901-0023-17

DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

Complainant timely requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or
Commission) reconsider its decision in Alex L. v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No.
2019002464 (Oct. 24, 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 Los Angeles Processing and Distribution Center in
Los Angeles, California, filed two formal EEO complaints, consolidated by the Agency for
processing, in which he claimed the Agency subjected him to discrimination and a hostile work
environment based on race (African-American), sex (male), age (over 40), and in reprisal for prior
protected 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.
2020001689

2
1. On or about January 1, 2016, he was informed he could no longer work pre-tour
overtime;
2. He was not allowed to work overtime on Sundays;
3. He was instructed to report directly to the Automated Package Processing System
machine at the beginning of his tour, rather than being allowed to get a mule first;
4. On March 21, 2016, he was given a Pre-Disciplinary Interview;
5. On March 14 and 15, 2016, and other subsequent dates, he was removed from driving
or otherwise singled out and sent to another assignment; and
6. On or about November 14, 2016, he became aware that management had not processed
his request for annual leave in lieu of holiday pay.

Following investigations into the complaints, Complainant requested a hearing before an EEOC
Administrative Judge (AJ). The AJ assigned to the matter granted summary judgment in the
Agency’s favor and issued a decision finding that Complainant was not subjected to discrimination
or reprisal as alleged. The Agency thereupon issued a final order fully implementing the AJ’s
decision.

On appeal, the Commission affirmed the final order finding that, beyond his bare assertions,
Complainant failed to present enough evidence to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to
whether he had been subjected to discrimination, reprisal, or a hostile work environment as he
alleged.

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), 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. He has
not presented any argument or evidence tending to establish the existence of either reconsideration
criterion. He merely attempts to relitigate his appeal on the merits, raising contentions 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. 2019002464 remains the Commission's
decision. There is no further right of administrative appeal on the decision of the Commission on
this request.

2020001689

3
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

August 12, 2020
Date