EEOC Appeal 2020001691

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Shalon C., 1
Complainant,
v.
Megan J. Brennan,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Request No. 2020001691
Appeal No. 2019001786
Hearing No. 440-2018-00189X
Agency No. 4J-604-0013-17
DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
Complainant timely requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or
Commission) reconsider its decision in Shalon C. v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No.
2019001786 (Oct. 30, 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).
Complainant, a Level 6 Mail Processing Clerk at the Agency’s Post Office in Romeoville, Illinois,
filed the underlying EEO complaint wherein she claimed that she was discriminated against on the
bases of her race (African-American), color (black) and sex (female) when she was not selected
for a position as a Supervisor, Customer Services.
Following an investigation, Complainant requested a hearing before an EEOC Administrative
Judge (AJ).
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.

2020001691	2
The AJ issued a decision by summary judgment in favor of the Agency finding no discrimination.
The AJ determined that the selecting official chose the selectee based on his years of retail and
business mail entry experience and his superior interview. The AJ noted that Complainant did not
have the same level of specialized experience in retail and business mail entry, scored poorly on
one interview question, and was not as highly recommended by former supervisors. The AJ found
that Complainant failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact to demonstrate that the
selection was based on anything other than qualifications, the interview, and the reference check.
As a result, the AJ found that Complainant was not subjected to discrimination. 	The Agency
subsequently issued a final order wherein it fully implemented the AJ’s decision.
On appeal, the Commission affirmed the Agency’s final order. 	Therein, we determined that
Complainant failed to show that the Agency’s reasons for its selection decision were pretextual.
Accordingly, the Commission found that Complainant was not subjected to discrimination as
alleged.
In her request for reconsideration, Complainant expresses her disagreement with the appellate
decision and reiterates many 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. 	Upon review of Complainant’s request to
reconsider, we observe that Complainant has mainly repeated the arguments she presented on
appeal. 	Complainant reiterates her contention that her experience was superior to that of the
selectee, but she has not refuted the legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons presented by the Agency
for its selection decision. We find that Complainant has not presented any persuasive evidence to
support reconsideration of the Commission’s decision. 	Complainant has failed to establish that
she was discriminated against on the bases of either her race, sex, or color with respect to the
selection at issue.
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. 2019001786 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.

2020001691	3
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