[Redacted], Romaine H., 1 Complainant,v.Louis DeJoy, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Southern Area), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Dec 17, 2020

Appeal No. 2019005056 (E.E.O.C. Dec. 17, 2020)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Romaine H.,1 Complainant, v. Louis DeJoy, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Southern Area), Agency. Request No. 2021000277 Appeal No. 2019005056 Hearing No. 490-2017-00196X Agency No. 4G-720-0015-17 DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION Complainant requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) reconsider its decision in Romaine H. v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 2019005056 (September 24, 2020). 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). At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant was employed by the Agency as a City Carrier in Pine Bluff, Arkansas. On April 10, 2017, Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging that the Agency subjected her to a hostile work environment and discrimination on the bases of disability when: 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. 2021000277 2 1. On December 19 and 24, 2016, the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) documentation she submitted was deemed unacceptable; 2. On January 28, 2017, she was threatened with discipline; and 3. She was called a “gimp.” Complainant also alleged unlawful retaliation for protected EEO activity when: 4. On May 15, 2017, she received a Letter of Warning for Unsatisfactory Attendance, dated April 27, 2017; and 5. On May 15, 2017, she received a Letter of Warning for Unsatisfactory Performance, dated May 11, 2017. Complainant requested a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). The AJ issued a decision without a hearing finding no discrimination. The Agency issued its final order implementing the AJ’s decision. Complainant appealed, and the Commission’s prior decision affirmed the Agency’s decision. In her request, Complainant, raised unrelated matters, and for the first time on request raises a new matter which was not raised by her in the prior appeal, i.e., her dissatisfaction concerning the Agency’s investigation of her harassment claim.2 Thus, we shall not now entertain this matter on request. 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) (Aug. 5, 2015), at 9-18; 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. 2019005056 remains the Commission's decision. There is no further right of administrative appeal on the decision of the Commission on this request. 2 Even if we did entertain this argument, we find the Agency accepted and investigated Complainant’s harassment claim. 2021000277 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 December 17, 2020 Date