0520120591
01-31-2013
Frederick E. Brown, Complainant, v. Patrick R. Donahoe, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Pacific Area), Agency.
Frederick E. Brown,
Complainant,
v.
Patrick R. Donahoe,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Pacific Area),
Agency.
Request No. 0520120591
Appeal No. 0120121841
Hearing No. 550-2011-00497X
Agency No. 1F-946-0134-10
DENIAL
Complainant timely requested reconsideration of the decision in Frederick E. Brown v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 0120121841 (July 11, 2012). 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(b).
The previous decision affirmed the Agency's final order adopting the decision of the EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ), who issued a decision without a hearing. The AJ found that Complainant had not established that the Agency discriminated against him or subjected him to harassment on the basis of race (African American), disability (unspecified), or reprisal for prior EEO activity when his supervisor bumped into him, he was denied overtime, he was denied a change of schedule, and management altered his attendance when it charged him with an absence. The AJ concluded that the Agency had offered legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions, that Complainant had not shown the reasons to be pretextual, and that Complainant had not shown the Agency's conduct to be so severe or pervasive as to create a hostile work environment.
In the previous decision, we found that the AJ properly issued a decision without a hearing and that the evidence did not establish that unlawful discrimination occurred. We noted, for example, that Complainant did not dispute that the supervisor who bumped into him was looking the other way and did not see him, that the Agency granted some of his requests for leave and overtime, or that the Agency required him to adhere to his schedule when its operational needs required his presence. In addition, we found that the incidents at issue were insufficiently severe or pervasive to make the work environment hostile.
In his request for reconsideration, Complainant asserts that the Agency's law department did not provide him with discovery. He also asserts that the Agency favors workers who are not African American and punishes employees by taking away overtime. The Agency did not file a reply to Complainant's request.
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) (rev. Nov. 9, 1999), at 9-17; see, e.g., Lopez v. Dep't of Agriculture, EEOC Request No. 0520070736 (Aug. 20, 2007). Rather, 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 done so here.
Complainant asserts that the Agency did not provide him with discovery, but he has offered no evidence that he served timely discovery requests on the Agency. Further, Complainant has offered no evidence that the Agency's actions were motivated by discriminatory animus. Accordingly, we find that Complainant has failed to demonstrate that the previous decision clearly erred in affirming the Agency's final order adopting the AJ's 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(b), and it is the decision of the Commission to DENY the request. The decision in EEOC Appeal No. 0120121841 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. 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 (Z0610)
If you decide to file a civil action, and if you do not have or cannot afford the services of an attorney, you may request from the Court that the Court appoint an attorney to represent you and that the Court also permit you to file the action without payment of fees, costs, or other security. See Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. � 2000e et seq.; the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 29 U.S.C. �� 791, 794(c). The grant or denial of the request is within the sole discretion of the Court. Filing a request for an attorney with the Court does not extend your time in which to file a civil action. Both the request and the civil action must be filed within the time limits as stated in the paragraph above ("Right to File a Civil Action").
FOR THE COMMISSION:
______________________________
Carlton M. Hadden, Director
Office of Federal Operations
January 31, 2013
Date
2
0520120591
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
2
0520120591