U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (E.E.O.C.) Office of Federal Operations * * * MAC O.,1 COMPLAINANT, v. MEGAN J. BRENNAN, POSTMASTER GENERAL, UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE (CAPITAL METRO AREA), AGENCY. Request No. 0520180180 Appeal No. 0120152431 Agency No. 4K-230-0089-14 April 25, 2018   DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION   Complainant timely requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) reconsider its decision in EEOC Appeal No. 0120152431 (November 29, 2017). 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 relevant time, Complainant worked as a City Carrier Assistant (CCA) at the Montrose Heights Post Office in Richmond, Virginia. Believing he was subjected to discrimination based on his religion and in reprisal for prior protected EEO activity, Complainant filed a formal complaint on May 1, 2014. Following an investigation of his six claims, Complainant initially requested a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge, but thereafter withdrew his request. The Agency issued a decision finding no discrimination. Complainant filed an appeal with the Commission.   In our prior decision, we found that the Agency discriminated against Complainant when it denied his request for a religious accommodation (i.e. to not work during his Sabbath). See Complainant v. United States Postal Service EEOC Appeal No. 0120152431 (November 29, 2017). The Agency cited the increased cost of incurring overtime as the reason for its denial. The Commission reasoned, however, that while an accommodation that required an employer to regularly pay premium wages could impose more than a di minimus cost and constitute an undue hardship, in this case the Agency needed to first demonstrate it made reasonable efforts to find an accommodation for Complainant. See id. The Agency did not make any effort to, for example, consider schedule swaps. See id. As for the remaining claims, (2) through (6), we affirmed the Agency’s finding of no discrimination. See id.   In his request for reconsideration, Complainant submits a lengthy statement and hundreds of pages of supporting documents. We find Complainant’s request is merely an attempt to reargue beliefs and facts that were, or should have been, presented on appeal.   In order to merit the reconsideration of a prior Commission decision, the requesting party must submit written argument or evidence which tends to establish that at least one of the criteria of 29 C.F.R. §1614.407(c) is met. The Commission’s scope of review on a request for reconsideration is narrow. Lopez v. Department of the Air Force, EEOC Request No. 05890749 (September 28, 1989). A request for reconsideration is not merely a form of a second appeal. Regensberg v. USPS, EEOC Request No. 05900850 (September 7, 1990). Instead, it is an opportunity to submit newly discovered evidence, not previously available; to establish substantive error in a previous decision; or to explain why the previous decision will have effects beyond the case at hand. Lyke v. USPS, EEOC Request No. 05900769 (September 27, 1990).   Complainant does not challenge specific aspects of our prior decision, let alone establish that it involved a clearly erroneous interpretation of material fact or law. His request has not shown that the appellate decision will have a substantial impact on the policies, practices, or operations of the Agency   Therefore, 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. 0120152431 remains the Commission’s decision. There is no further right of administrative appeal on the decision of the Commission on this request.    ORDER (C0610)   The Agency is ordered to take the following remedial action: 1. Within ninety (90) calendar days from the date that this decision is issued, the Agency shall complete a supplemental investigation, and issue a decision, in order to determine Complainant’s entitlement to compensatory damages incurred as a result of the Agency’s unlawful denial of his request for Saturdays off as an accommodation to his religious observances between February 18 and April 10, 2014. The Agency shall afford Complainant the opportunity to submit evidence in support of his claim for damages within the 90-day time frame, and Complainant shall cooperate with any additional evidentiary requests made by the Agency. Within thirty (30) calendar days of the date that the Agency determines the amount of compensatory damages owed Complainant, the Agency shall pay that amount. 2. Within ninety (90) calendar days from the date that this decision is issued, the Agency shall provide appropriate remedial EEO training to the responsible management officials identified in this decision as the Postmaster and the CSM, including at least eight (8) hours of in-person or interactive training on an Agency’s obligation to provide accommodations to its employees for religious observances. If any of the responsible management officials have left the Agency’s employ, the Agency shall furnish documentation of their departure date(s). 3. Within sixty (60) calendar days from the date this decision is issued, the Agency shall consider taking disciplinary action against the responsible management officials identified as the Postmaster and the CSM. The Commission does not consider training to be disciplinary action. The Agency shall report its decision to the Compliance Officer. If the Agency decides to take disciplinary action, it shall identify the action taken. If the Agency decides not to take disciplinary action, it shall set forth the reason(s) for its decision not to impose discipline. If any of the responsible management officials have left the Agency’s employ, the Agency shall furnish documentation of their departure date(s).   The Agency is further directed to submit a report of compliance in digital format as provided in the statement entitled “Implementation of the Commission’s Decision.” The report shall be submitted via the Federal Sector EEO Portal (FedSEP). See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.403(g). Further, the report must include evidence that the corrective action has been implemented.    POSTING ORDER (G0617)   The Agency is ordered to post at its Montrose Heights Station facility copies of the attached notice. Copies of the notice, after being signed by the Agency’s duly authorized representative, shall be posted both in hard copy and electronic format by the Agency within 30 calendar days of the date this decision was issued, and shall remain posted for 60 consecutive days, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. The Agency shall take reasonable steps to ensure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. The original signed notice is to be submitted to the Compliance Officer as directed in the paragraph entitled “Implementation of the Commission’s Decision,” within 10 calendar days of the expiration of the posting period. The report must be in digital format, and must be submitted via the Federal Sector EEO Portal (FedSEP). See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.403(g).    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 Director Office of Federal Operations Footnotes 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.