EEOC Appeal 2020001346

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Hayden R.,1
Complainant,
v.
Megan J. Brennan,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Southern Area),
Agency.
Request No. 2020001346
Appeal No. 0120182688
Hearing No. 450-2017-00370X
Agency No. 4G-752-0050-17
DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
Complainant timely requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or
Commission) reconsider its decision in EEOC Appeal No. 0120182688 (October 16, 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 worked as a Rural Carrier, R-06, at the Agency’s Post Office in Waxahachie, Texas.
In the underlying complaint, Complainant claims that the Agency retaliated against him for prior
EEO activity when, on December 29, 2016, he was issued a Notice of Removal.
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.

2 2020001346
Following the Agency’s investigation of the complaint, Complainant requested a hearing before
an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). Over Complainant's objections, the AJ granted the
Agency’s Motion for Summary Judgment and issued a decision without a hearing, finding in favor
of the Agency on July 10, 2018. Complainant appealed. EEOC Appeal No. 0120182688 affirmed
the AJ’s conclusion that no unlawful retaliation was proven.
In his request for reconsideration, Complainant argues the AJ erred in rendering her decision by
summary judgment based upon an erroneous determination that Agency managers were unaware
of Complainant’s prior EEO activity. However, in affirming the AJ’s result, our prior appellate
decision presumed Complainant had established a prima facie case for retaliation but went on to
conclude management witnesses successfully rebutted that initial inference of retaliation with an
articulation of legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for the removal action. The decision then
concluded Complainant failed to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that these proffered
reasons were a pretext masking unlawful retaliatory animus.
In his current request, Complainant also extensively raises arguments previously made and
addressed in our earlier decision – that his termination was the result of being provided with
conflicting directives relating to the route deviation that the Agency claims it did not approve. We
emphasize that a request for reconsideration is not a second appeal to the Commission. See EEO
MD-110, Ch. 9, § VII.A. 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.
Accordingly, 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. 0120182688 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.

3 2020001346
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
May 5, 2020
Date