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

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Aug 17, 2020

2020001914 (E.E.O.C. Aug. 17, 2020)

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

Clinton R.,1
Complainant,

v.

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

Request No. 2020001914
Appeal No. 2019005739
Agency No. 1K-291-0045-19

DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

Complainant requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or
Commission) reconsider its decision in EEOC Appeal No. 2019005739 (November 19, 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 worked as a Laborer Custodian at the Agency’s facility in Columbia, South Carolina.
On July 27, 2019, Complainant filed a formal complaint alleging that the Agency subjected him
to discrimination on the bases of age and reprisal when, on or about May 14, 2019, his request to
have a Neighborhood Delivery and Collection Unit (NDCBU) installed on his rental property was
not acted upon. Complainant stated that the request was submitted because his tenants’ current
mail boxes were not in the best condition, and he felt the NDCBU would provide more security
for their mail. The Agency dismissed the complaint, pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.107(a)(1), for
failure to state a claim.

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.
2020001914

2
The previous decision found that Complainant failed to establish that he suffered a harm or loss to
a term, condition, or privilege of his employment for which there was a remedy. The previous
decision noted that Complainant’s request for the NDCBU was as a landlord customer of the
Agency and not as its employee. Moreover, on appeal, Complainant stated that he and his tenants
were being discriminated against because he works for the Agency. According to the previous
decision, this was not a protected basis under EEO laws, and that the complaint, as written, did not
state a viable claim of discrimination or unlawful retaliation.

In his request for reconsideration, Complainant argued that the previous decision involved a clearly
erroneous interpretation of material fact. According to Complainant, he is a participant in an
ongoing EEO case involving A1, a management official. A1, he maintains, received a work order
to install the NDCBU at his rental property. According to Complainant, were it not for retaliation
by A1, the NDCBU would have been installed. Complainant also maintained that the previous
decision will have a substantial impact on the policies, practices, or operations of the Agency,
because, allowing this case to be affirmed in favor of the Agency, would set a bad precedent by
allowing retaliation to continue and causing a chilling effect on employees who are exercising their
rights.

We remind Complainant 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), at 9-18 (Aug. 5, 2015); see, e.g., Lopez v. Dep’t of Agric., EEOC Request No.
0520070736 (Aug. 20, 2007). A reconsideration request is an opportunity to demonstrate that the
previous decision involved a clearly erroneous interpretation of material fact or law; or (2) will
have a substantial impact on the policies, practices, or operations of the Agency. Complainant has
not established either criteria here. The Commission has long held that merely rearguing the facts
of a case is improper in a request for reconsideration. Bartlomain v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC
Request No. 05910436 (Oct. 10, 1991).

Because Complainant has not put forth any arguments which the Commission finds to be material
to the outcome of the underlying decision, or that were not previously considered in rendering the
underlying decision, we find Complainant has not met the criteria for reconsideration.
Complainant does not allege that he suffered a loss or a harm to a term, condition, or privilege of
his employment. In his request, Complainant clearly states that, “[I] did not ask for any special
consideration because I was a postal employee but as a customer who was with [a
recommendation] by the regular carrier to do so. If any other customer would have requested a
(NDCBU) it would have been acted upon and installed at no charge.” As Complainant concedes,
this matter does not involve his status as an employee but as an Agency customer; therefore, his
remedy, if any, lies outside of our purview.

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. 2019005739 remains the Commission's
decision. There is no further right of administrative appeal on the decision of the Commission on
this request.
2020001914

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 17, 2020
Date