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

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Sep 22, 2022

Appeal No. 2021005072 (E.E.O.C. Sep. 22, 2022)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Tyree L.,1 Complainant, v. Louis DeJoy, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Field Areas and Regions), Agency. Request No. 2022002958 Appeal No. 2021005072 Hearing No. 410-2020-00527X Agency No. 4K-300-0102-20 DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION Complainant timely requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) reconsider its decision in EEOC Appeal No. 2021005072 (March 23, 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 at the Agency’s Doraville Post Office in Doraville, Georgia. On July 30, 2021, Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging that the Agency discriminated against him on the bases of race (European American/Caucasian), color (White), age (66), and in reprisal for prior protected EEO activity when: he was placed on Emergency Placement and later issued a Notice of Removal. 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. 2022002958 2 Following an investigation, Complainant timely requested a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). However, the AJ assigned to the case issued a summary judgment decision finding there were no genuine issues of material fact and concluding no discrimination was established. The Agency subsequently issued a final order fully adopting the AJ’s decision. Complainant appealed the decision to the Commission. In EEOC Appeal No. 2021005072, we found that the AJ properly issued a decision without a hearing. Further, we determined the AJ correctly found that the Agency articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions, which Complainant did not show to be a pretext for unlawful discrimination. We noted that the Agency believed that Complainant engaged in inappropriate conduct when he struck another employee and violated the Zero-Tolerance Policy, and the Agency took the actions that it deemed appropriate against both employees. Although Complainant disagreed with management’s perceptions, he did not offer evidence that the stated reasons were untrue. Moreover, Complainant did not provide any evidence that the named management officials harbored discriminatory or retaliatory animus. In his request for reconsideration, Complainant argues the appellate decision in EEOC No. 2021005072 involves a clearly erroneous interpretation of material fact and/or law and should be reversed. However, he does not identify the alleged errors nor provide any other support for this statement. 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). 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. 2021005072 remains the Commission's decision. There is no further right of administrative appeal on the decision of the Commission on this request. 2022002958 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 22, 2022 Date