0520120114
02-24-2012
Samuel Johnson, Complainant, v. Patrick R. Donahoe, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Southwest Area), Agency.
Samuel Johnson,
Complainant,
v.
Patrick R. Donahoe,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Southwest Area),
Agency.
Request No. 0520120114
Appeal No. 0120112955
Agency No. 1G-772-0016-11
DENIAL
Complainant timely requested reconsideration of the decision in Samuel
Johnson v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 0120112955 (October
14, 2011). 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(b).
BACKGROUND
The facts and procedural background are set forth in the previous
decision and are incorporated herein by reference. We note the following
salient facts: Complainant claimed that he was the victim of employment
discrimination on the bases of race (Asian) and age (50) when:
(1) on March 9, 2011, he was singled out when his supervisor told him
that he had exceeded his scheduled break;
(2) beginning March 9, 2011, his supervisor harassed him by bringing
more OTRs for prep than before; and
(3) on an unspecified date, his supervisor told him to sweep the area,
even though he was already working on loading the APPS.
The previous decision affirmed the Agency’s dismissal of the complaint
on the grounds that Complainant failed to state a claim of discrimination
or harassment.
ARGUMENTS ON RECONSIDERATION AND DETERMINATION
In his reconsideration request, Complainant maintained that he was
denied his basic right to work in a “humane working environment.”
Complainant maintained that he was “constantly” being singled out
and harassed on a daily basis. Complainant further took issue with the
Agency’s investigation of his harassment claims and the EEO process. 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. A reconsideration request is an opportunity to demonstrate
that the previous decision involved a clearly erroneous interpretation
of material fact or law; or (2) will have a substantial impact on the
policies, practices, or operations of the Agency. Here, we find no
evidence that Complainant has met the criteria for reconsideration.
He has not established that the previous decision clearly erred with
respect to its determination that his allegations failed to state a claim.
We find that, in accordance with the cases cited by the previous decision,
Complainant is not aggrieved and did not establish that the conduct
he was subjected to was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the
conditions of his employment.
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(b), and it is the decision of the Commission to deny
the request. The decision in EEOC Appeal No. 0120112955 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
___2/24/12_______________
Date
2
0520120114
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
2
0520120114