[Redacted], Selma D., 1 Complainant,v.Louis DeJoy, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Field Areas and Regions), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Sep 29, 2022

Appeal No. 2022001682 (E.E.O.C. Sep. 29, 2022)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Selma D.,1 Complainant, v. Louis DeJoy, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Field Areas and Regions), Agency. Request No. 2022003535 Appeal No. 2022001682 Agency No. 4B-150-0076-21 DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION Complainant timely requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) reconsider its decision in EEOC Appeal No. 2022001682 (May 9, 2022). 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 City Carrier, Q-01, at the McKeesport Post Office in McKeesport, Pennsylvania. On December 9, 2021, Complainant filed a formal complaint alleging that the Agency subjected her to discrimination on the basis of sex (female). The Agency, in its decision, framed the claims as follows: 1. On a date not specified in December 2020, when she voluntarily stepped down from her higher-level detail to help deliver holiday mail, her pay was reduced to carrier pay, and after the holiday, she was not returned to her higher-level detail; 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. 2022003535 2 2. On or around March 24, 2021, she was marked on the schedule as taking Leave Without Pay (LWOP) that she had not requested; and 3. on or around April 27, 2021, she was denied a higher-level detail at the North Versailles Post Office. The Agency dismissed these claims for failure to timely contact an EEO counselor, pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.107(a)(2). The Agency reasoned Complainant’s August 26, 2021 EEO counselor contact was made more than 45 days after the allegedly discriminatory events; her statements about comparators were not the allegedly discriminatory events at issue; waiting until one obtains proof of discrimination does not toll the time limit for EEO counselor contact; Complainant did not allege she was unaware of the time limits; and the record contained an affidavit stating that an EEO poster was appropriately displayed at the facility. Complainant appealed the Agency’s decision to the Commission. In EEOC Appeal No. 2022001682, we found that the Agency’s dismissal was proper. The Commission reasoned that Complainant should have reasonably suspected discrimination within 45 days of the discrete, allegedly discriminatory events. However, she did not contact an EEO counselor until well beyond the forty-five-day time limit, and Complainant had not presented sufficient justification for extending or tolling the time limit. In order to merit the reconsideration of a prior Commission decision, the requesting party must submit written argument or evidence which tends to establish that at least one of the criteria of 29 C.F.R. §1614.407(c) is met. The Commission's scope of review on a request for reconsideration is narrow. Lopez v. Dep’t. of the Air Force, EEOC Request No. 05890749 (September 28, 1989). A request for reconsideration is not merely a form of a second appeal. Regensberg v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Request No. 05900850 (September 7, 1990). Instead, it is an opportunity to submit newly discovered evidence, not previously available; to establish substantive error in a previous decision; or to explain why the previous decision will have effects beyond the case at hand. Lyke v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Request No. 05900769 (September 27, 1990). Here, Complainant simply reiterates contentions and arguments raised, or that should have been raised, on appeal. 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. 2022001682 remains the Commission's decision. There is no further right of administrative appeal on the decision of the Commission on this request. 2022003535 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 September 29, 2022 Date