Arleen L.,1 Complainant,v.Megan J. Brennan, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Capital Metro Area), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Nov 16, 2017

0520170437 (E.E.O.C. Nov. 16, 2017)

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

Arleen L.,1
Complainant,

v.

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

Request No. 0520170437

Appeal No. 0120152923

Hearing No. 430-2014-00224X

Agency No. 4K-230-0200-13

DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

Complainant timely requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or
Commission) reconsider its decision in EEOC Appeal No. 0120152923 (May 31, 2017). 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).

In her underlying complaint, Complainant claimed that she was discriminated against on the
bases of her sex (female), race (Caucasian), color (white), and age (52) when:

1. On August 6, 2013, Complainant was placed on Emergency Placement in an off-duty
status; and

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.
0520170437

2
2. Complainant was issued a Notice of Removal dated October 2, 2013, with an effective
date of November 8, 2013.2

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
issued the Emergency Placement and the Notice of Removal based on her unsafe driving
practices, which included three prior motor vehicle accidents. 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 the Emergency Placement and the Notice of Removal
were pretext for discrimination.

In her request for reconsideration, Complainant contends that a hearing should take place to
resolve conflicting evidence. According to Complainant, she had two prior minor accidents
rather than four prior accidents as the Agency stated in its Motion for Summary Judgment.
Complainant maintains that her accidents were minor as opposed to those of the comparisons she
cites and that she was deserving of far less discipline. Complainant references a male
comparison who she states was not issued a removal despite being in an accident where he drove
his Agency vehicle from the roadway, across the public sidewalk, across a customer’s lawn, and
into the customer’s home.

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 persuasive evidence to support reconsideration of
the Commission’s decision. Complainant has failed to establish that the disciplinary measures
imposed against her were not warranted in light of her prior motor vehicle accident history.
Complainant has not demonstrated that the Agency’s explanation for her being placed on
Emergency Placement and issued a Notice of Removal was pretext intended to hide
discriminatory intent.

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. 0120152923 remains the
Commission’s decision. There is no further right of administrative appeal on the decision of the
Commission on this request.

2 The Notice of Removal was reduced to a Letter of Warning through the grievance process.
0520170437

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

November 16, 2017
Date