Adele T.,1 Complainant,v.Margaret Weichert, Acting Director, Office of Personnel Management, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Jan 8, 2020

202000227 (E.E.O.C. Jan. 8, 2020)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013

Adele T.,1
Complainant,

v.

Margaret Weichert,
Acting Director,
Office of Personnel Management,
Agency.

Request No. 202000227

Appeal No. 0120181420

Agency No. 2017015

DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

Complainant timely requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or
Commission) reconsider its decision in EEOC Appeal No. 0120181420 (August 27, 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 was an applicant for employment with the Agency. On
February 19, 2016, the Agency advertised a Senior Executive Service (SES) position of Deputy
Associate Director, Training and Management Assistance Program under Vacancy
Announcement Number No. 16-184-PMF-SES in Washington D.C. Complainant applied for the
position on or about March 2, 2016. The record reveals that Complainant was informed on April
11, 2016, that her application was not among the best qualified and she was not referred for
further consideration.

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.
2020000227

2
On January 11, 2017, Complainant was mistakenly sent a disposition letter from the Agency’s
Human Resources (HR) Office indicating that she was among the best qualified applicants who
were referred to the selecting official for further consideration, but she had not been selected.

Complainant alleged that she was removed from consideration for the position when the Office
of Inspector General (OIG) disclosed information about her prior OIG complaint to the Planning
and Policy Analysis (PPA) Office. Complainant had raised allegations regarding the Agency’s
classification of her employment records and the OIG subsequently closed the complaint as
outside its jurisdiction. Complainant also alleged that she was not selected for the position
because the Agency “documented [her] as a non-traditional referral type” and that she assumed a
“traditional referral type” was selected. Complainant clarified that she meant, “not what you
know, but who you know.”

The Assistant Inspector General for Investigations (AIG) denied that the OIG disclosed
Complainant’s information to the PPA Office and averred that it was not the OIG’s practice to
disclose such information without consent. A Human Resources Specialist (HRS) affirmed that
the Agency evaluated applicants for the Deputy Associate Director position by reviewing their
resumes and determining whether they had the required experience. The Agency determined that
26 applicants were eligible. Complainant was notified by email on April 11, 2016, that she was
not eligible. HRS said that Complainant did not meet the five Executive Core Qualifications and
three Mandatory Technical Qualifications.

Complainant filed a formal EEO complaint claiming the Agency discriminated against her on the
bases of race, sex, color, and in reprisal for prior protected EEO activity when on April 11, 2016,
she received a notification indicating that shew as not referred for the Deputy Associate Director
of Training and Management Assistant Program position advertised under Vacancy
Announcement No. 16-184-PMF-SES.

After an investigation, the Agency provided Complainant with a copy of the report of
investigation and notice of the right to request a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge.
In accordance with Complainant’s request, the Agency issued a final decision pursuant to 29
C.F.R. § 1614.110(b), finding no discrimination. Complainant appealed.

In EEOC Appeal No. 0120180205, the Commission affirmed the Agency’s final decision finding
no discrimination.

In her request for reconsideration, while Complainant argues that “the appellate decision
involved a clearly erroneous interpretation of material fact and law,” the arguments that she
made do not support her contentions. 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.

2020000227

3
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. 0120181420 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.

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

January 8, 2020
Date