Sang G.,1 Complainant,v.Megan J. Brennan, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Southern Area), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Apr 21, 2017

0520170068 (E.E.O.C. Apr. 21, 2017)

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

Sang G.,1
Complainant,

v.

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

Request No. 0520170068

Appeal No. 0120170028

Agency No. 4G-780-0131-16

DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

Complainant timely requested reconsideration of the decision in Sang G. v. U.S. Postal Serv.,
EEOC Appeal No. 0120170028 (Nov. 23, 2016). 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 25, 2016, Complainant filed a formal EEO complaint alleging that the Agency
subjected him to discrimination on the bases of national origin (Hispanic), age, and in reprisal
for prior protected EEO activity when, on an unspecified date, a sympathy card intended for
Complainant with money collected from his co-workers was lost and Complainant felt the
April 2016 investigation into the incident was inadequate.

The Agency dismissed the compliant for untimely EEO Counselor contact and for failure to
state a claim. Complainant appealed and, in Sang G. v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No.

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.
0520170068

2
0120170028 (Nov. 23, 2016), the Commission affirmed the dismissal. The Commission noted
that Complainant had alleged that a manager took the money for the card and that Complainant
appeared to be unhappy with the results of an investigation that cleared that manager. Further,
the record showed that a co-worker replaced the money lost from his own pocket. The
Commission found that Complainant had not alleged how he was harmed with respect to a
term, condition, or privilege of employment. Accordingly, the Commission found no error in
the Agency’s dismissal for failure to state a claim.

In his request for reconsideration, Complainant argues that the Commission’s decision was
based on a limited investigation and that he should be afforded a hearing to establish what
happened to the money and card. 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 the he was harmed with respect to a term, condition, or privilege
of employment. 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. 0120170028 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 (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
0520170068

3
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 21, 2017
Date