[Redacted], Ross H., 1 Complainant,v.Louis DeJoy, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Headquarters), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Nov 3, 2020

Appeal No. 2019005061 (E.E.O.C. Nov. 3, 2020)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Ross H.,1 Complainant, v. Louis DeJoy, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Headquarters), Agency. Request No. 2020004367 Appeal No. 2019005061 Hearing No. 480-2016-00686X Agency No. 4X-048-0058-15 DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION Complainant requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) reconsider its decision in Ross H. v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No. 2019005061 (February 26, 2020). 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). In his underlying complaint, Complainant alleged the Agency discriminated against him on the bases of disability and reprisal for prior protected activity when: 1. On July 13, 2015 and September 24, 2015, Complainant was told there was no work available and sent home; and 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. 2020004367 2 2. On August 4, 2015, Complainant was instructed to submit additional documentation regarding his medical restrictions. Following an investigation, Complainant requested a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). The Agency submitted a motion for a decision without a hearing, and, over Complainant’s objection, the AJ subsequently issued a decision by summary judgment in favor of the Agency. The Agency subsequently issued its final order adopting the AJ’s decision. Complainant filed an appeal to the Commission. The Commission issued a decision affirming the Agency’s final order. Specifically, we found the Agency was not required to accommodate Complainant by removing keyboard use, which was an essential function of his position, from his responsibilities. We found Complainant failed to offer evidence that a question of material fact existed to warrant a hearing regarding whether a reasonable accommodation was available that would allow him to continue to fulfill his duties without using a keyboard. Additionally, we found Complainant failed to rebut the Agency’s legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons in order to establish discriminatory animus. In his request for reconsideration, Complainant reiterates arguments previously made and considered in our prior decision. The Commission emphasizes 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) (Aug. 5, 2015), 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 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. 2019005061 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. 2020004367 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 November 3, 2020 Date