EEOC Appeal 2020001402

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Marquis K., 1
Complainant,
v.
Megan J. Brennan,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Northeast Area),
Agency.
Request No. 2020001402
Appeal No. 0120182727
Hearing No. 530-2016-00465X
Agency No. 4C-170-0012-16
DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
Complainant timely requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or
Commission) reconsider its decision in Marquis K. v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No.
0120182727 (Oct. 24, 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 a complaint filed on March 1, 2016, Complainant, a PS-06 Mail Processing Clerk (Flat Sorting
Machine Operator) at the Legree S. Daniels Processing and Distribution Center in Harrisburg,
Pennsylvania alleged that the Agency discriminated against him based on disability and age when:
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.

2020001402	2
1. 	On October 31, 2015, Complainant was instructed to report to a job outside his medical
restrictions;
2. 	On November 5, 2015, Complainant was sent home; and
3. 	On 	November 	5, 	2015, 	Complainant 	was 	constructively 	discharged 	from 	his
employment when he was forced to retire.
Following an investigation, Complainant requested a hearing before an EEOC Administrative
Judge (AJ). The AJ assigned to the matter granted the Agency’s motion for summary judgment
and issued a decision finding no discrimination. 	The Agency subsequently issued a final order
fully implementing the AJ’s decision.
In our previous decision, the Commission affirmed the final order. The Commission determined
that there were no genuine issues of material fact in dispute. 	The Commission concluded that,
rather than engage management in an interactive discussion on his needs by indicating his specific
concerns with the duties of the Sales, Services and Distribution Associate position and requesting
any potential needed reasonable accommodation to perform the essential functions thereof,
Complainant refused to report thereto, refused to submit medical documentation when requested,
and ultimately retired. 	As Complainant failed to engage in the interactive process, he failed to
establish he was entitled to reasonable accommodation. Further, Complainant did not show that
the Agency required him to report to a job outside his medical limitations because he failed to
show he would have been required to perform duties outside of his limitations. As a result, the
Agency did not further discriminate against Complainant when it sent Complainant home after he
refused to report for training and to his new position. 	Finally, the Commission found that
Complainant’s constructive discharge claim failed.
In the instant request for reconsideration, Complainant argues that it would have been futile to
participate in the interactive process and that the Agency did not participate in good faith. 	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). 	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. 0120182727 remains the Commission's
decision. There is no further right of administrative appeal on the decision of the Commission on
this request.

2020001402	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