Hannah C.,1 Complainant,v.Megan J. Brennan, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Southern Area), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Feb 8, 2017

0520170090 (E.E.O.C. Feb. 8, 2017)

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

Hannah C.,1
Complainant,

v.

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

Request No. 0520170090

Appeal No. 0120142493

Agency No. 4G-350-0053-13

DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

Complainant timely requested reconsideration of the decision in Hannah C. v. U.S. Postal
Serv., EEOC Appeal No. 0120142493 (Oct. 3, 2016). 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(c).

On May 7, 2013, Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging that the Agency discriminated
against her on the bases of race (White/Black), sex (female), and in reprisal for prior protected
EEO activity when: her manager denied her the right to speak or raise her hand at a meeting
and took extra duties away from her; her pay was delayed; she was supervised by another
Rural Carrier Associate; her personal mail was given to another Rural Carrier Associate to
deliver to her home; her manager almost bumped into her from behind; and she was accused of
failing to deliver Express Mail on time and, subsequently, received a Pre-Disciplinary
Interview.

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.
0520170090

2
Following an investigation, Complainant requested a final Agency decision (FAD). In the
FAD, the Agency determined that Complainant had not been subjected to discrimination,
reprisal, or a hostile work environment as alleged. Complainant appealed and, in Hannah C.
v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No. 0120142494 (Oct. 3, 2016), the Commission affirmed
the FAD.

In her request for reconsideration, Complainant argues that the Agency violated her
constitutional rights by not allowing her to earn extra pay. Additionally, Complainant submits
new evidence that she contends shows that she suffered discrimination and reprisal.
Accordingly, Complainant requests that the Commission reconsider its previous decision.

The Commission notes that new evidence generally will not be accepted in a request for
reconsideration. See Houser v. Dep't of Homeland Sec., EEOC Request No. 0520110548
(Oct. 7, 2011) (citing Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive for 29 C.F.R.
Part 1614 (EEO MD-110) (Aug. 5, 2015)). Further, the Commission emphasizes that a
request for reconsideration is not a second appeal to the Commission. EEO MD-110, at 9-18;
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 evidence to support reconsideration of the Commission’s finding that she failed to show
that the Agency’s actions were motivated by discriminatory or retaliatory animus. As such,
Complainant has not put forth any persuasive arguments to support granting the request for
reconsideration.

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 Hannah C. v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC
Appeal No. 0120142493 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.

0520170090

3
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

February 8, 2017
Date