Soo C., Complainant,v.Megan J. Brennan, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Eastern Area), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Aug 9, 2017

0520170279 (E.E.O.C. Aug. 9, 2017)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013

Soo C.,
Complainant,

v.

Megan J. Brennan,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Eastern Area),
Agency.

Request No. 0520170279

Appeal No. 0120150635

Hearing No. 532-2014-00039X

Agency No. 4C-440-0138-13

DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

Complainant timely requested reconsideration of the decision in Soo C. v. U.S. Postal Serv.,
EEOC Appeal No. 0120150635 (Feb. 22, 2017). EEOC Regulations provide that the
Commission may, in its discretion, grant a request to reconsider any previous Commission
decision 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).

On August 29, 2013, Complainant filed a formal complaint alleging that the Agency
discriminated against her on the bases of race (African-American), color (black), disability, and
age (over 40) when:

1. On June 4, 2013, another employee was selected to perform a detail as the Acting
District Finance Manager; 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.

0520170279

2
2. On September 10, 2013, a detail which was slated to begin was cancelled.

Following an investigation, Complainant requested a hearing before an Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission Administrative Judge (AJ). The AJ assigned to the case issued a
summary judgment decision finding that Complainant had not been subjected to discrimination
as alleged. The Agency subsequently issued a final order fully implementing the AJ’s decision.
Complainant appealed and, in Soo C. v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No. 0120150635 (Feb.
22, 2017), the Commission affirmed the final order finding that Complainant failed to show that
the Agency’s reasons for its actions were pretextual.

In her request for reconsideration, Complainant contends that the Commission improperly
framed her claims and failed to address a third claim (a November 26, 2013 non-selection).
Further, Complainant argues that the Commission erroneously found that there were no material
facts in dispute.

Regarding Complainant’s argument that the Commission erroneously failed to address her non-
selection claim, the record reveals that this claim was raised in a separate complaint (Agency No.
4C-440-0002-14). Further, Complainant raised no challenges on appeal regarding the manner in
which the AJ managed and adjudicated her complaint. Additionally, the Commission finds no
error in the manner in which Complainant’s claims were rephrased for clarity. Finally, with
respect to Complainant’s other contentions, 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), 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 presented any evidence to
support reconsideration of the Commission’s finding that she failed to show that she was
subjected to discrimination as alleged. As such, Complainant has not put forth any persuasive
arguments to support granting the request for reconsideration.

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. 0120150635 remains the
Commission’s decision. There is no further right of administrative appeal on the decision of the
Commission on this request.

0520170279

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

August 9, 2017
Date