Jeramy R.,1 Complainant,v.Megan J. Brennan, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Capital Metro Area), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionApr 25, 2017

0520170131 (E.E.O.C. Apr. 25, 2017)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Jeramy R.,1 Complainant, v. Megan J. Brennan, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Capital Metro Area), Agency. Request Nos. 0520170130, 0520170131 Appeal Nos. 0120152897, 0120152898 Agency Nos. 4K-200-0110-14, 4K-200-0088-12 DECISION ON REQUESTS FOR RECONSIDERATION Complainant timely filed two separate requests for reconsideration of the consolidated decision in Jeramy R. v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal Nos. 0120152897 and 0120152898 (Oct. 25, 2016). Accordingly, the Commission exercises its discretion to consolidate the requests for joint processing. 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 July 7, 2015, Complainant and the Agency entered into a settlement agreement settling two EEO complaints (Agency Nos. 4K-200-0110-14 and 4K-200-0088-12). Complainant later sent correspondence to the Commission requesting that the settlement agreement be rescinded because he was “forced” to sign the agreement and Agency counsel “stealthily” included Agency No. 4K-200-0088-12. The Agency responded stating that Complainant was not forced or coerced to sign the agreement, that he could have elected not to sign the agreement, and that the language of the agreement clearly stated that it was to settle both Agency Nos. 4K-200- 0110-14 and 4K-200-0088-12. The Agency further noted that Complainant had not alleged 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. 0520170130, 0520170131 2 that the Agency breached the settlement agreement and stated that it had complied with the terms of the agreement. In Jeramy R. v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal Nos. 0120152897, 0120152898 (Oct. 25, 2016), the Commission determined that the settlement agreement was valid and binding on both parties. The Commission found that there was no evidence of duress or misrepresentation as the Agency’s initial settlement offer and the signed acceptance clearly stated that the settlement agreement involved the withdrawal of both Agency No. 4K-200-0110-14 and Agency No. 4K-200-0088-12. In his requests for reconsideration, Complainant expresses his disagreement with the previous decision and reiterates arguments previously made on appeal. Complainant again argues that the Agency stealthily added Agency No. 4K-200-0088-12 to the settlement agreement and pressured him to sign it. The Commission finds that Complainant has not put forth any persuasive arguments to support granting the requests for reconsideration as the arguments raised in the instant requests were raised in his previous appeals and fully considered. 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), at 9-18 (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. Complainant has not presented any evidence to support reconsideration of the Commission’s finding that he failed to show that he was in any way coerced or forced into signing the agreement or that the agreement was invalid. After reviewing the previous decision and the entire record, the Commission finds that the requests fail to meet the criteria of 29 C.F.R. § 1614.405(c), and it is the decision of the Commission to DENY the requests. The decision in EEOC Appeal Nos. 0120152897 and 0120152898 remains the Commission’s decision. There is no further right of administrative appeal on the decision of the Commission on these requests. 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. 0520170130, 0520170131 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 April 25, 2017 Date