[Redacted], Kathie N., 1 Complainant,v.Louis DeJoy, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Southern Area), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Feb 16, 2022

Appeal No. 2019005012 (E.E.O.C. Feb. 16, 2022)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Kathie N.,1 Complainant, v. Louis DeJoy, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Southern Area), Agency. Request No. 2021005252 Appeal No. 2019005012 Hearing No. 510-2016-00392X Agency No. 4G-335-0012-16 DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION Complainant timely requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) reconsider its decision in EEOC Appeal No. 2019005012 (July 28, 2021). 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 relevant time, Complainant worked as a PS-7 Lead Sales Service Associate/Lead Clerk at the Agency’s Deltona Pines Station in Deltona, Florida. Complainant filed a formal complaint, claiming harassment and discrimination based on sex, age, disability, and in reprisal for prior protected activity. Complainant’s allegations included that the Agency denied her a reasonable accommodation. 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. 2021005252 2 After an investigation, Complainant requested a hearing. The assigned EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ) issued a decision by summary judgment concluding the evidence of record did not establish any discrimination. In so doing, the AJ found that the record did not establish that she was subjected to harassment based on disability. The AJ further concluded that Complainant failed to rebut the Agency’s legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions. Thereafter, the Agency issued a final order implementing the AJ’s finding of no discrimination. Complainant appealed. In EEOC Appeal No. 2019005012, the Commission affirmed the Agency’s final order implementing the AJ’s finding of no discrimination. In so doing, the Commission clarified that Complainant’s allegations included the denial of reasonable accommodation, in addition to her harassment claim. The Commission found that Complainant failed to demonstrate that she was a qualified individual with a disability because she was unable to perform the essential duties of a Lead Clerk, noting that, while Complainant had been performing a series of modified limited duty assignments, her medical condition worsened to the extent that she was not performing the duties of a Lead Clerk and her modified assignments were the result of the Agency’s efforts to “make work” for her. The Commission also noted that the record showed that, given Complainant’s limitations, there was not a vacant, funded position which she could perform. The Commission, therefore, found that the record did not establish that the Agency’s failure to provide a reasonable accommodation was in violation of the Rehabilitation Act. The Commission also found that the record did not establish that the alleged acts of harassment were based on Complainant’s membership in any protected class. In the instant request for reconsideration, we have carefully reviewed Complainant’s arguments and determine that the matters either were raised or could have been raised below. We note that during the original appeal from the Agency’s final order, Complainant presented extensive arguments, many of which have been replicated in the instant request. We emphasize 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 done so here. 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. 2019005012 remains the Commission's decision. There is no further right of administrative appeal on the decision of the Commission on this request. 2021005252 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 February 16, 2022 Date