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

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Apr 5, 2019

2019001275 (E.E.O.C. Apr. 5, 2019)

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

Kelsie T.,1
Complainant,

v.

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

Request No. 2019001275

Appeal No. 0120181868

Hearing No. 410-2016-00152X

Agency No. 4K-300-0111-15

DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

Complainant timely requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or
Commission) reconsider its decision in EEOC Appeal No. 0120181868 (April 5, 2018). 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).

During the period at issue, Complainant was employed a Data Collection Technician at the
Agency’s Atlanta Processing and Distribution Center in Atlanta, Georgia. On April 25, 2015,
Complainant filed a formal EEO complaint alleging that she was subjected to a hostile work
environment and discriminatory harassment by the Agency based on disability and in reprisal for
prior protected EEO activity.

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.
2 2019001275

The prior appellate decision affirmed the Agency's final order implementing the EEO
Administrative Judge’s (AJ’s) decision by summary judgment in favor of the Agency’s conclusion
that Complainant failed to prove her discrimination claims.

In the request for reconsideration, Complainant argues that the previous decision erred in its
development of the record and interpretation of the facts. However, we find that in her request for
reconsideration, Complainant has presented many of the same arguments she raised on appeal.
We emphasize that a request for reconsideration is not a second appeal to the Commission. See
EEO MD-110, Ch. 9, § VII.A. 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.

Addressing Complainant's contention that she was prejudiced by the AJ’s failure to hold a hearing,
we note that the Commission’s regulations allow an AJ to issue a decision without a hearing when
the AJ finds that there is no genuine issue of material fact. We have reviewed the Commission’s
prior decision, which made an express determination on this issue, finding that the AJ properly
issued a summary judgment. Specifically, the AJ properly determined that there was no genuine
issue of material fact in this case. 29 C.F.R. §1614.109(e)(3). We find no reason to disagree with
the AJ's finding that Complainant failed to set forth sufficient facts showing that there was a
genuine issue still in dispute. The AJ's decision indicates that the AJ considered all of the evidence
of record, including Complainant's brief and supporting exhibits, and concluded that no genuine
issue of material fact was presented.

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. 0120181868 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.

3 2019001275

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

April 5, 2019
Date