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

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Mar 16, 2023

Appeal No. 2021002414 (E.E.O.C. Mar. 16, 2023)

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. 2022004787 Appeal No. 2021002414 Agency No. 1C-451-0015-20 DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION Complainant timely requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) reconsider its decision in EEOC Appeal No. 2021002414 (August 3, 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 Mail Processing Clerk at the Agency’s Springdale Annex in Springdale, Ohio. Complainant filed a formal complaint, claiming discrimination based on race and sex. Complainant alleged that she was denied higher level training; she was taken off her higher level detail; when she returned to work to attend training for a new bid, after working for an hour, the Learning Development and Diversity Specialist informed her that she was not signed up for the training course and made no effort to resolve the issue; the Learning Development and Diversity 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. 2022004787 2 Specialist spoke to her in a nasty manner and embarrassed and humiliated her in front of her peers; and Complainant was informed that the Plant Manager had directed her to leave the premises and to submit additional medical information. After an investigation, Complainant was advised of her right to request a hearing before an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Administrative Judge. When Complainant did not request a hearing within the requisite time frame, the Agency issued a final decision concluding the evidence of record did not establish any discrimination. Complainant appealed. In EEOC Appeal No. 2021002414, the Commission dismissed Complainant’s appeal as untimely. In so doing, the Commission determined that the record showed the Agency’s final decision was delivered to Complainant’s address of record on August 26, 2020; Complainant was advised that she had 30 calendar days after receiving the final decision to file an appeal with the Commission; and Complainant failed to submit her appeal within that time frame, as Complainant submitted her appeal on March 4, 2021. 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. 2021002414 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. 2022004787 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 March 16, 2023 Date