EEOC Appeal 2020001332

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Shad L., 1
Complainant,
v.
Megan J. Brennan,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Southern Area),
Agency.
Request No. 2020001332
Appeal No. 0120182792
Agency No. 4G-320-0088-17
DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
Complainant timely requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or
Commission) reconsider its decision in Shad L. v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No.
0120182792 (Oct. 23, 2019). 	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).
In the underlying complaint, Complainant, a Rural Carrier at the Post Office in Midville, Georgia,
alleged that the Agency subjected him to discrimination and a hostile work environment on the
bases of sex (male), disability (extreme left-handedness, vision requiring eyeglasses, pacemaker,
and a knee condition), age (75), and in reprisal for prior protected EEO activity when: (1) on July
24, 2015, management issued Complainant a Letter of Warning (LOW); (2) on August 5, 2015,
management issued Complainant a Notice of Removal; (3) on August 21, 2015, management
placed Complainant in emergency, off-duty status; (4) on January 3, 2017, management issued
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.

2020001332	2
Complainant a LOW; (5) on January 25, 2017, management issued Complainant a LOW; (6) on
February 15, 2017, management issued Complainant a LOW; (7) about February 16, 2017,
management issued Complainant a seven-day suspension; (8) on February 16, 2017, management
placed Complainant in emergency, off-duty status; (9) on March 2, 2017, management issued
Complainant a Notice of Removal; (10) on April 13, 2017, management placed Complainant in
emergency, off-duty status; (11) on May 2, 2017, management issued Complainant a Notice of
Removal; (12) about March 15, 2017, the State of Georgia Unemployment Office denied
Complainant’s claim for unemployment benefits; (13) on April 12, 2017, the State of Georgia
Unemployment Office denied Complainant’s unemployment benefits appeal; and (14) on May 18,
2017, the State of Georgia Unemployment Office denied her claim and appeal for benefits.
The Agency accepted claims (4) through (11) for an investigation and dismissed claims (1) – (3)
and (12) – (14) pursuant to 29 C.F.R. §§ 1614.107(a)(1) and (a)(2). The Agency determined that
Complainant raised (1) through (3) in an untimely manner with an EEO Counselor and that (12)
through (14) failed to state a claim because they amounted to a collateral attack on another forum.
Following an investigation, Complainant requested a hearing before an EEOC Administrative
Judge (AJ). The AJ assigned to the matter issued a summary judgment decision in favor of the
Agency finding no discrimination or reprisal. The Agency issued a final order fully implementing
the AJ’s decision. Our previous decision concluded that even construing any inferences raised by
the undisputed facts in favor of Complainant, a reasonable fact-finder could not find in his favor.
Therefore, we affirmed the final order finding no discrimination or reprisal.
In the instant request for reconsideration, Complainant expresses his disagreement with the
previous decision and reiterates arguments previously made on appeal. 	The Commission
emphasizes that a request for reconsideration is not a second appeal. 	Equal Employment
Opportunity Management Directive for 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 (EEO MD-110), Chap. 9 § VI.A (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 persuasive evidence to support reconsideration of the
Commission’s decision.
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. 0120182792 remains the Commission's
decision. There is no further right of administrative appeal on the decision of the Commission on
this request.

2020001332	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
September 2, 2020
Date