Ebonie L.,1 Complainant,v.Janet L. Yellen, Chair, Federal Reserve System, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Nov 2, 2018

0520180522 (E.E.O.C. Nov. 2, 2018)

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

Ebonie L.,1
Complainant,

v.

Janet L. Yellen,
Chair,
Federal Reserve System,
Agency.

Request No. 0520180522
Appeal No. 0120172706
Hearing No. 570-2014-01325X
Agency No. FRBEEO1403001

DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

Complainant timely requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or
Commission) reconsider its decision in EEOC Appeal No. 0120172706 (June 27, 2018). 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 her underlying complaint, Complainant, a Senior Staff Assistant, claimed that she was
discriminated against on the bases of her sex (female), age (51), race (African-American), religion
(Catholic), and color (light skin) when:

1. From October 17, 2013 to January 10, 2014, Complainant was placed on administrative
leave pending a decision on her employment due to alleged repeated violations of the
Agency’s leave policy;

2. After Complainant’s meeting on October 17, 2013, with the Senior Employment
Specialist, Complainant’s Supervisor and a Manager, Complainant was humiliated
when she was escorted from the building; and

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.
0520180522

2

3. On January 10, 2014, Complainant was removed from employment.

The EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ) granted the Agency’s motion for summary judgment and
issued a decision finding that Complainant had not been subjected to discrimination. The AJ stated
that Complainant failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination under the alleged bases
with regard to her placement on administrative leave. The AJ noted that an investigation revealed
that Complainant’s tardiness and early departures amounted to approximately 230 hours of not
working. The AJ stated that Complainant was terminated because of the extensive hours for not
working without express approval. The AJ found that Complainant did not refute the Agency’s
legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for placing Complainant on administrative leave and
subsequently terminating her. With regard to Complainant being escorted from the building, the
Agency explained that it is its practice to escort an employee after being placed on administrative
leave and the employee’s building entry is restricted. The AJ found that Complainant has not
alleged any facts to show the Agency’s legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason was a pretext. In its
final order, the Agency implemented the AJ’s Decision.

On appeal, the Commission affirmed the Agency’s final order. We found that the AJ correctly
found that a preponderance of the evidence did not establish that Complainant was discriminated
against by the Agency as alleged.

In her request for reconsideration, Complainant contends that the AJ did not consider that she had
made requests from the Agency to ascertain who had the authority to terminate her employment.
Complainant points out that in the month she was placed on administrative leave, she received a
commendable annual service award with several hundred dollars in raises. Complainant argues
that the AJ did not consider that she had been issued a flex schedule, a government cell phone and
a laptop for work at home. Complainant further claims that the AJ failed to consider that other
employees were not escorted out of the building. Additionally, Complainant maintains that the
Agency improperly collected money from her when it erroneously believed she was late.

In response, the Agency asserts that Complainant did not identify any factual or legal errors in the
Commission’s previous decision warranting reversal, and instead improperly repeats arguments
that were properly rejected.

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 evidence establishing that
the Commission erred in finding that the AJ properly granted summary judgment in this matter.
0520180522 3
Moreover, the Commission finds that Complainant has not presented any evidence to support
reconsideration of the Commission’s finding that she failed to show that she was subjected to
discrimination.
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. 0120172706 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
November 2, 2018
Date