Complainantv.Patrick R. Donahoe, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Capital Metro Area), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionOct 31, 2014
0520140222 (E.E.O.C. Oct. 31, 2014)

0520140222

10-31-2014

Complainant v. Patrick R. Donahoe, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Capital Metro Area), Agency.


Complainant

v.

Patrick R. Donahoe,

Postmaster General,

United States Postal Service

(Capital Metro Area),

Agency.

Request No. 0520140222

Appeal No. 0120132589

Agency No. 4K-200-0171-09

DENIAL

Complainant timely requested reconsideration of the decision in EEOC Appeal No. 0120132589 (January 8, 2014). 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).

Our previous decision affirmed the Agency's final decision, which found that the Agency did not discriminate against Complainant on the bases of disability and reprisal when (1) since July 9, 2009, it refused to permit him to work his limited-duty assignment (Route 1207) and assigned him to a route that was not within his medical restrictions; (2) on October 15, 2009, it withdrew his limited-duty bid assignment and instructed him to leave the work floor, stating that there was no limited-duty work available; and (3) it denied him overtime. In our decision, we noted that the Manager of Customer Service stated that she was not aware that Complainant had any limited-duty restrictions and that Complainant was not working on a limited-duty assignment. She also stated that Complainant lost his assigned, Route 1207 bid to a more senior employee during an in-house bid procedure and that he became an Unassigned Regular because he did not bid on another route. We further noted that the Supervisor of Customer Service stated that Complainant was not on limited duty during the relevant time. According to an October 15, 2009, memorandum that the Supervisor issued to Complainant, Complainant informed management on October 14, 2009, that he could not complete his assigned duties without taking breaks because of a medical condition. The memorandum, which noted that Complainant had not submitted a request for light duty or a completed Form CA-2a, Notice for Recurrence,1 instructed Complainant to submit a light-duty request with supporting medical documentation and to use leave until the Agency made a determination on the matter. With respect to the overtime claim, we noted that the Manager and Supervisor stated that Complainant was on the overtime-desired list, that he was not denied overtime, and that he did not work overtime in October 2009 because he was on leave pending the approval of his request for light duty.

We concluded that the Agency articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions and that Complainant did not prove that the articulated reasons were a pretext for discrimination. Assuming, for purposes of analysis, that Complainant was an individual with a disability, we found that Complainant did not request reasonable accommodation during the relevant period and did not submit medical documentation until after the incidents at issue in the complaint. Accordingly, we found that Complainant did not establish that the Agency unlawfully denied him a reasonable accommodation.

In his request for reconsideration, Complainant argues that the previous decision involved a clearly erroneous interpretation of material fact or law. He asserts, as he did on appeal, that Agency officials made erroneous statements and distorted facts. Complainant further asserts that he received a limited-duty assignment to Route 1207 as a result of a March 2007 settlement of a prior EEO complaint and that he would have worked overtime if the Agency had not precluded him from working his limited-duty assignment. In addition, Complainant addresses matters that occurred before and after the incidents at issue here.

We remind Complainant 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) (rev. Nov. 9, 1999), at 9-17; see, e.g., Lopez v. Dep't of Agriculture, EEOC Request No. 0520070736 (Aug. 20, 2007). Rather, a reconsideration request is an opportunity to demonstrate that the previous 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. He has not shown that the previous decision erroneously found that the evidence did not establish that the Agency's articulated reasons for its actions were pretextual. Similarly, he has not shown that the previous decision erroneously concluded that he did not request reasonable accommodation during the relevant period and did not submit medical documentation until after the incidents at issue in the complaint.

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. 0120132589 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.

RIGHT TO REQUEST COUNSEL (Z0610)

If you decide to file a civil action, and if you do not have or cannot afford the services of an attorney, you may request from the Court that the Court appoint an attorney to represent you and that the Court also permit you to file the action without payment of fees, costs, or other security. See Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. � 2000e et seq.; the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 29 U.S.C. �� 791, 794(c). The grant or denial of the request is within the sole discretion of the Court. Filing a request for an attorney with the Court does not extend your time in which to file a civil action. Both the request and the civil action must be filed within the time limits as stated in the paragraph above ("Right to File a Civil Action").

FOR THE COMMISSION:

______________________________

Carlton M. Hadden, Director

Office of Federal Operations

October 31, 2014

Date

1 On appeal, Complainant stated that he submitted a Form CA-2a to the Department of Labor's Office of Workers' Compensation Programs (OWCP) on October 19, 2009, and that OWCP accepted his claim on November 12, 2009.

---------------

------------------------------------------------------------

---------------

------------------------------------------------------------

2

0520140222

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

Office of Federal Operations

P.O. Box 77960

Washington, DC 20013

2

0520140222