EEOC Appeal 2020001817

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Grayce H.,1
Complainant,
v.
Megan J. Brennan,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Southern Area),
Agency.
Request No. 2020001817
Appeal No. 2019004748
Agency No. 1G-754-0007-19
DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
Complainant timely requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or
Commission) reconsider its decision in Grayce H. v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No.
2019004748 (Sept. 18, 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).
During the period at issue, Complainant worked as a Postal Service Employee (PSE) Mail
Processing Clerk at the Agency's North Texas Processing and Distribution Center in Coppell,
Texas. 	Complainant subsequently contacted an EEO Counselor to initiate the discrimination
complaint process. On February 15, 2019, Complainant and the Agency entered into a settlement
agreement to resolve the matter.
The settlement agreement contained, in pertinent part, the following provision:
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.

2020001817	2
[Complainant] agrees to resign after Management agrees to follow-
up regarding the voucher for [Complainant's] shoes and validate if
[Complainant] received pay for three hours annual leave. All of this
will be done by 2-15-19 (issuance of monies owed and resignation
effective that date).
Prior to the execution of the settlement agreement, a spill accident at the Agency’s facility resulted
in the confiscation of Complainant’s and other employees’ shoes as they all departed the building
as a safety precaution. 	In February 2019, Complainant alleged that the Agency breached the
settlement agreement. The Agency issued a decision finding that it had not breached the settlement
agreement. In our appellate decision, we found that the Agency had not breached the settlement
agreement. 	In do so, the Commission rejected Complainant’s allegation that the terms of the
agreement meant that she was owed one million dollars as compensation for the Agency’s
confiscation of her shoes. Rather, “[a]n Agency promise to ‘follow-up’ on Complainant’s voucher
[for the cost of the shoes] cannot be construed as promising to pay any amount Complainant
requested.” The Commission concluded that the Agency met its obligations by following up with
Complainant to determine adequate compensation.
In the instant request for reconsideration, Complainant, expresses her disagreement with the
appellate decision and reiterates arguments previously made on appeal. 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), Chap.
9 § VI.A (Aug. 5, 2015); see, e.g., Lopez v. Dep't of Agric., EEOC Request No. 0520070736 (Aug.
20, 2007). A request for reconsideration is not the time for Complainant to raise new evidence or
new arguments. 	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. 2019004748 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.

2020001817	3
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 9, 2020
Date