Jacquetta C.,1 Complainant,v.Sonny Perdue, Secretary, Department of Agriculture (Food Safety and Inspection Service), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Nov 16, 2018

0120172500 (E.E.O.C. Nov. 16, 2018)

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

Jacquetta C.,1
Complainant,

v.

Sonny Perdue,
Secretary,
Department of Agriculture
(Food Safety and Inspection Service),
Agency.

Appeal No. 0120172500

Agency No. FSIS-2016-00389

DECISION

On July 17, 2017, Complainant filed an appeal with the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (EEOC or Commission), pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.403(a), from the Agency’s
June 16, 2017 final decision concerning an equal employment opportunity (EEO) complaint
claiming employment discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
(Title VII), as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.

BACKGROUND

During the period at issue, Complainant worked as a Food Inspector at the Tyson’s Food facility
in Holcomb, Kansas.

On May 19, 2016, Complainant filed a formal EEO complaint. Complainant claimed that the
Agency subjected her to a hostile work environment and discriminated against her based on race
(African-American). The Agency accepted Complainant’s allegations of discrimination based on
her race when:

1. on May 3, 2016, she was terminated from her position as a Food Inspector GS-
1862-4, during her probationary period;

2. on February 26, 2016, Complainant was issued a Letter of Instruction (LOI);

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.
0120172500

2

3. on various occasions including February 11, 2016, Complainant’s request for both
a reasonable accommodation and to discuss her hand injury went unanswered;

4. on January 12, 2016, Complainant’s evening shift rotations were disrupted
because of the preferences of other trainees;

5. on or about December 2015, two peers received permanent day shifts, but
Complainant did not receive the same opportunity;

6. on various occasions including December 2015 and January 6, 2016, Complainant
was not given adequate training (i.e., in handling knives and watching video while
cutting), because of a language barrier between her and her Hispanic trainers;

7. on an unspecified date, Complainant’s request to be transferred went unanswered;

8. on an unspecified date, Complainant was penalized for inquiring about her Time
and Attendance (T&A) reports and assisting a colleague with T&A's, while
Hispanic colleagues were allowed to work on T&A in the locker room; and,

9. other incidents of harassment included, but were not limited, to the following
matters:

a. from December 1-28, 2015, Complainant was not issued keys to the women's
locker room or provided a new knife and new uniform;

b. on January 6, 2016, Complainant’s coworkers made rude comments about her
weight, i.e., "What are you trying to be skinny," commented about her food
choices, and issued her small knives too difficult to handle;

c. in January 2016, management failed to provide Complainant with safety
goggles;

d. on various occasions including on February 9, 2016, Complainant’s
colleagues moved her cell phone and her lunch from the break room;

e. on March 21, 2016, Complainant was yelled at; and,

f. on an unspecified date, Complainant’s coworker splashed hand wash in her
eye.2

2 Complainant raised a number of additional claims which were dismissed by the Agency for
failure to state a claim in a partial acceptance/partial dismissal letter dated July 26, 2016. As
0120172500

3
The investigative record reflects the following pertinent matters relating to the accepted subject
claims (identified above as claims 1 – 9).

Claims 1 and 2

On February 26, 2016, Complainant was issued a Letter of Instruction (LOI). Complainant
believed that she was issued the LOI based on a reported incident to Human Resources (“HR”), a
grievance filed in January 2016, and a hand injury that occurred in February 2016. Complainant
disagreed with the points on the Letter of Instruction, and believed her race was a factor because
it was clear they were “coming for her”. Complainant addressed a system of nepotism within the
workplace, the language barrier within the facility, the division between coworkers, her whistle
blowing efforts, her filing of a grievance all led to her LOI’s, and her subsequent termination.

The Supervisory Consumer Safety Inspector (Caucasian) (hereinafter referred to as “S1”)
testified that he issued Complainant the February 26, 2016 LOI. He stated that she was often late,
belligerent, uncooperative, and failed to improve on her deficiencies.

Complainant’s second line supervisor, the Supervisory Public Health Veterinarian (Caucasian)
(hereinafter referred to as “S2”), noted that the letter was a follow up to a January 21, 2016 LOI
which had been issued based on deficiencies in Complainant’s work performance. S2 noted that
he did not have direct involvement in her termination, but that he had issued Complainant LOIs
when she failed to perform as expected. S2 forwarded the same letters to the HR office for
guidance on potential disciplinary actions.

The HR Specialist (Caucasian) stated that he terminated Complainant from her position within
her probationary period. He noted that no other management official was involved in the
decision to terminate. The HR Specialist stated that his division received a disciplinary request
action in March 2016. It was his responsibility to review that request and determine whether
disciplinary action should be taken, including termination. The HR Specialist testified the
Complainant was terminated because of tardiness on March 21, 2016, for returning late to the
inspection line after break/lunch on February 10, February 11, and February 18, 2016. He also
considered that on March 14, 2016, Complainant allowed contaminated product to pass her
inspection station and did not stamp out the condemned product. The HR Specialist testified that
on that same date, she stopped the inspection line several times and was uncooperative with the
establishment as to why she was stopping the line, causing the plant approximately 5 minutes of
down time. The HR Specialist further testified that on February 17, 2016, Complainant visited a
local restaurant, flashed her US Inspection badge, and demanded to speak to a manager. He
found this to be a gross and improper use of her Agency Inspection badge.

Complainant has not disputed the dismissals on appeal, we will not address these claims further
in this decision.
0120172500

4
Claims 3 and 7

On February 8, 2016, Complainant injured her hand in a workplace injury. She stated that she
spoke with the Office of Workers’ Compensation Program (“OWCP”) on March 21, 2016
regarding her injury, and submitted reasonable accommodation requests that day. Complainant
requested an activity modification, but was told that there were no eligible positions or modified
positions for her.

S2 stated that Complainant spoke to him several times regarding her hand injury and that she was
provided with the proper forms to seek an accommodation. S2 affirmed that Complainant saw a
physician, and her injury was approved through OWCP. He further testified that as far as he
knew, she was offered time off work to recover.

The Reasonable Accommodation Advisor (“RAA”) (Caucasian) stated that on March 21, 2016,
he received an email forwarded to him that was originally sent to the Department Disability
Employment Program Manager. The RAA testified that the email was sent by Complainant
regarding reasonable accommodation. He sent her back reasonable accommodation forms to fill
out.

The RAA attested that Complainant requested light duty, but he advised her that there was no
light duty available, but that she could seek assistance through the OWCP. She then asked to be
transferred to the National Resources Conservation Service as a soil scientist. He advised
Complainant that those positions required individuals to have a bachelor of science in Agronomy
with a specialty in soil science. He informed her that she could seek a transfer to a chicken
facility. At the time, she was working with cows and hogs. The RAA stated that he contacted the
District Office in efforts to get Complainant transferred at the end of March or the beginning of
April 2016. However, based on a lack of completed paperwork, the transfer was never
completed. The Resource Manager for the District Office recalled speaking with the RAA about
the closet chicken plant, but stated that a formal request was never processed.

On March 28, 2016, the RAA received a form indicating that Complainant had trigger finger in
both hands and that she was seeing a doctor on April 4, 2016. Complainant did not provide
follow-up documentation that she visited the doctor. On April 1, 2016, the RAA informed
Complainant that her doctor failed to fill out one of the RA forms, but she did not follow up with
a completed copy. He testified that without all the documents, he could not make any
determinations on what a possible accommodation might be. The RAA testified that while there
were a lot of emails between them about her condition, she did not proceed with her request, so
she was not offered any accommodations through the office.

The Workers’ Compensation Specialist (Caucasian) (hereinafter referred to as “the WC
Specialist” testified that she discussed Complainant’s hand issue at length with her. The WC
Specialist affirmed that Complainant filed an occupational injury claim on March 7, 2016, which
was accepted April 15, 2016 for medical and compensation benefits.

0120172500

5
Claim 4

On January 12, 2016, Complainant testified that another Food Inspector for Tyson Foods
(Hispanic) (hereinafter referred to as “FI”) rotated her (FI’s) shift to provide other trainees’ a
preferred slot, even though this action was against policy. Complainant stated that this change
disrupted her shift. Complainant asserted that FI did not like her, did not want to be her peer-
trainer, and did not speak much to her on the night of the January 12, 2016 shift.

S2 stated that he was not involved or aware of this matter occurring, but affirmed that if someone
is reassigned during a work shift, it is at the direction of the supervisor, and is usually because
someone is going home sick. S2 stated that it was the policy not to change shift rotations simply
because someone did not like the position.

FI denied being responsible for Complainant’s rotation being disrupted. FI stated that the
standard operating procedure is that if employees wanted to change shifts, they would notify the
supervisor, who would authorize the change. However, she also noted that sometimes employees
would change shifts without the supervisor’s knowledge.

Claim 5

Complainant stated that she was informed during training that inspectors would rotate day and
night shifts. However, she asserted that two Mexican employees were assigned to permanent day
shifts shortly after training began. Complainant felt that she was unwelcome to work day shifts.
And was not given the same chance to solely work day shifts.

S2 testified there are no permanent positions. S2 stated that everyone rotates shifts every 4
weeks. S2 testified that if someone wanted to remain on a particular shift, it was up to the
employee to find someone to trade with. S2 testified that everyone is allowed to ask for a trade,
which can go on as long as the two workers agree. S2 stated that when Complainant's rotation
came up to go to the night shift, she went to nights for a week, before going back to day shifts.
S2 testified that he had helped Complainant find a trade because she told him that she wanted to
remain on day shifts.

S1 affirmed there is no validity to Complainant's claim, because she was granted a trade to
remain on the day shift. S1 affirmed that Complainant's race was not a factor and that none of
Complainant's peers were assigned to permanent day shifts.

FI stated that permanent positions do not exist for anyone. She stated that employees had to find
others to trade with, and that any trade was documented and signed for. FI stated that sometimes
no one is available for a trade, and that employees just wait until others want to trade shifts.
Otherwise, all employees rotate.

0120172500

6
Claim 6

Complainant alleged that S2 failed to provide her with adequate training. Complainant asserted
that Hispanic trainers spoke little to no English, which made trainings unnecessarily difficult.
Complainant also found the 10-minute training videos to be inadequate. Finally, Complainant
felt that her knives were never sharpened properly, and that she was only given one good knife.

S2 stated that the videos are designed for everyone and has an English-speaking narrator. S2
stated that Complainant was provided with a variety of fluent English speaking peer trainers. S2
affirmed that Complainant voiced concerns that she could not understand two of her peer
trainers, one of whom was FI. S2 found this assertion puzzling as both trainers were second-
generation Latina Americans who spoke English without an accent. However, given her
complaints, S2 repeatedly switched peer trainers. When Complainant complained that this action
was not enough, he pulled her off the line so she could get more training. Additionally, because
they are both left handed, he also gave Complainant knife training demonstrations. S1 affirmed
that Complainant complained considerably about others not speaking English, but asserted that
she was always trained by someone who spoke fluent English.

Claim 8

Complainant asserted that S2 penalized for inquiring about her Time and Attendance (T&A), and
for assisting a colleague. Complainant asserted that she was issued a Letter of Instruction, but did
not provide specific details as to how the Letter of Instruction penalized her.

S2 stated that Complainant was never penalized regarding her T&A. S2 stated that he verbally
had a discussion with Complainant not to work on her T&A after hours. He also noted that the
Letter of Instruction was not a penalization, but simply were instructions that she could not work
on her T&A after hours. S2 stated that the interaction stemmed from Complainant and a
coworker working on their T&A for approximately 45 minutes after their tour had ended. S1
stated that he was aware of the situation. S1 stated that employees must be on the clock when
they are working on T&As.

FI stated that employees were only supposed to work on T&As during company hours, but that
many employees worked on them off clock, and in the locker rooms. FI stated that S2 would not
be aware of this occurring, because he would not be allowed in the female locker room.

Claim 9

Complainant asserted that S1 and S2 failed to provide her access to the female locker rooms,
failed to provide her with a new knife, and failed to provide her with the appropriate uniform.
Complainant asserted that it was not until December 28, 2016 that she was issued keys to the
locker room. Complainant argued that when she was finally able to purchase knives, which she
did so directly through Tyson, they would dull, and were generally too small for proper use.
0120172500

7
Complainant also asserted that S2 failed to provide her with safety goggles, which resulted in her
getting splashed in the eyes by a coworker. She acknowledged that safety glasses were available,
but that she wanted safety goggles. Complainant also asserted that S2 was generally hostile, and
had yelled at her in the past.

S2 stated that he was responsible for assigning keys, knives and uniforms to employees. S2
stated that the facility was having issues with uniforms being stolen from the female locker
rooms. Due to the thefts, maintenance installed locks on the locker room. Around the time
Complainant was hired, December 21, 2015, there were not enough for keys for everyone. S2
asserted that as soon as there were enough keys, everyone was given a set. He asserted that all
staff knew that general uniforms were available in the office for employee use until that
employee’s personal uniform was received. He asserted that he also assisted in the new knife
purchases. Regarding Complainant’s concerns with her knives, he noted that Complainant was
repeatedly knife trained, but she consistently ignored her training and instructions on how to use
the knives properly. Regarding the safety goggles, S2 stated that the facility had eye shields, but
Complainant did not want to wear them. He informed her that to obtain goggles, she had to
contact the Occupational and Health Specialist, and he is unsure if she did so. S2 acknowledged
that he has previously raised his voice in frustration with Complainant’s behavior and
performance, but denied ever being hostile to her.

S1 stated that all employees buy their own knives and are later reimbursed by the Agency.
Regarding uniforms, he stated those uniforms were provided by the Tyson company. S1
reiterated the same statements regarding the locker room locks as S2. S1 testified that he assisted
Complainant in obtaining her uniform by submitting her requested size to the company. Once the
order was processed, the company brought the uniforms to the inspectors. S1 affirmed that as far
as he knew Complainant wore relief uniforms until her uniform came in.

Generally, Complainant believed that her coworkers were rude and unpleasant to her because she
was a black American working in a predominately Mexican facility. Complainant believed many
were illegal immigrants, and thus kept to themselves. Complainant also asserted that many were
not friendly, and made rude comments about her lunch and weight. Complainant also believed
that they intentionally moved her lunch box around. Complainant believed management and her
coworkers wanted black people to feel inferior. Complainant testified that many immigrant
workers held socialist beliefs and were corrupt because they came from corrupt societies.

S2 stated that he was aware of Complainant’s complaint that a coworker moved her lunch on the
table. S2 stated that it appeared the situation was misinterpreted and that the coworker who
moved it was merely trying to converse with someone else at the table. That coworker moved her
belongings approximately 6 to 8 inches away as Complainant was not sitting at the time. He
noted that the breakroom is for everyone, and sometimes when people set things down, it gets
moved as people find space, particularly if the person is not with their belongings. S2 stated that
they had a discussion on common courtesy in the workplace.

0120172500

8
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 Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission Administrative Judge (AJ). Complainant initially requested a hearing.
Complainant, however, withdrew her hearing request. In accordance with Complainant’s request,
the Agency issued a final decision pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.110(b), finding no
discrimination.

The instant appeal followed. Complainant did not raise any new contentions on appeal.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

Disparate Treatment

A claim of disparate treatment is examined under the three-part analysis first enunciated in
McDonnell Douglas Corporation v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). For complainant to prevail, he
must first establish a prima facie case of discrimination by presenting facts that, if unexplained,
reasonably give rise to an inference of discrimination, i.e., that a prohibited consideration was a
factor in the adverse employment action. See McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 802; Furnco
Construction Corp. v. Waters, 438 U.S. 567 (1978). The burden then shifts to the agency to
articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its actions. See Texas Department of
Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 253 (1981). Once the agency has met its burden,
the complainant bears the ultimate responsibility to persuade the fact finder by a preponderance
of the evidence that the agency acted on the basis of a prohibited reason. See St. Mary’s Honor
Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (1993).

This established order of analysis in discrimination cases, in which the first step normally
consists of determining the existence of a prima facie case, need not be followed in all cases.
Where the agency has articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the personnel action
at issue, the factual inquiry can proceed directly to the third step of the McDonnell Douglas
analysis, the ultimate issue of whether complainant has shown by a preponderance of the
evidence that the agency’s actions were motivated by discrimination. See U.S. Postal Service
Board of Governors v. Aikens, 460 U.S. 711, 713-714 (1983); Hernandez v. Department of
Transportation, EEOC Request No. 05900159 (June 28, 1990); Peterson v. Department of Health
and Human Services, EEOC Request No. 05900467 (June 8, 1990); Washington v. Department
of the Navy, EEOC Petition No. 03900056 (May 31, 1990).

Even if we assume arguendo that Complainant established a prima facie case of discrimination,
the Agency has articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions. For example,
regarding Complainant’s termination within her probationary period, it was clear that
Complainant was not performing to standards. The record demonstrated that management
repeatedly attempted to instruct Complainant on how to perform her job, as evident in the two
Letters of Instructions she received on January 21, 2016, and February 26, 2016 (claims 1 and 2).
The Letters of Instructions were intended to assist Complainant. However, the record
demonstrated that Complainant struggled in her role.
0120172500

9
Moreover, based on the record, there is nothing to suggest that the HR Specialist’s explanation of
why Complainant was terminated was pretext for discrimination.

Complainant also alleged that she had a shift disrupted, and was not given preferred day shifts
because of her race. Complainant alleged that on January 12, 2016, her evening shift rotations
were disrupted because of other trainees' preferences (claim 4). Even if we viewed this claim in
Complainant’s favor and assumed the rotation interrupted her evening shift, there was no
allegation by Complainant that it was anything but a onetime occurrence. Complainant also
alleged that her coworkers received permanent day shifts, while she was not provided with the
same opportunities (claim 5). The record demonstrated that all employees rotated between the
day and night shifts. The only way to avoid that was to have an officially agreed upon trade that
was approved by a supervisor. The record demonstrated that several employees had established
trades with one another. Complainant was provided with the same opportunities as everyone else
to seek a shift trade. Furthermore, the record demonstrates that S2 assisted Complainant find a
trade because she wanted to remain on day shifts.

Complainant also alleged that she was penalized for inquiring about her Time and Attendance
(T&A) reports, and assisting a colleague with a T&A, while Hispanic colleagues could work on
T&As in the locker rooms without penalization (claim 8). The record demonstrates that S2 spoke
with Complainant regarding her T&As, and specifically reminded her that she had to complete
them while she was on the clock. Complainant did not suffer any direct disciplinary actions from
this verbal reminder. This instruction was also included in the Letter of Instructions (“LOI”) sent
to Complainant. While Complainant may have viewed the LOIs as disciplinary actions, the LOIs
were exactly as titled, they were meant as instructions and guidance for Complainant to improve
her performances.

In sum, there is no evidence which suggests the Agency’s actions were based on discriminatory
animus. Complainant has not provided any evidence that suggests that the Agency's reasons were
pretext for discrimination or that discriminatory animus was involved.

Reasonable Accommodation

As a preliminary matter, we note that Complainant did not list disability as a basis for her
complaint, instead she framed the reasonable accommodation issue around her race. Given the
manner in which this issue was raised, we will address the reasonable accommodation in the
context of a disability claim, despite the manner in which the formal complaint was originally
accepted for investigation.

Under the Commission's regulations, a federal agency may not discriminate against a qualified
individual on the basis of disability and is required to provide reasonable accommodations to the
known physical and mental limitations of an otherwise qualified individual with a disability
unless the Agency can show that reasonable accommodation would cause an undue hardship. See
29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o), (p).
0120172500

10
To establish that she was denied a reasonable accommodation, Complainant must show that: (1)
she is an individual with a disability, as defined by 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(g); (2) she is a “qualified”
individual with a disability pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(m); and (3) the Agency failed to
provide her with a reasonable accommodation. See EEOC Enforcement Guidance on Reasonable
Accommodation and Undue Hardship under the Americans with Disabilities Act, EEOC Notice
No. 915.002 (Oct. 17, 2002) (Enforcement Guidance on Reasonable Accommodation). An
individual with a disability is “qualified” if he or she satisfies the requisite skill, experience,
education, and other job-related requirements of the employment position that the individual
holds or desires and, with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential
functions of such position. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(m). “Essential functions” are the fundamental job
duties of the employment position that the individual holds or desires. Id. § 1630.2(n).

A request for a modification or change at work because of a medical condition is a request for
reasonable accommodation. Enforcement Guidance on Reasonable Accommodation at Question
1. After receiving a request for reasonable accommodation, an agency “must make a reasonable
effort to determine the appropriate accommodation.” 29 C.F.R. Part 1630, App. § 1630.9. Thus,
“it may be necessary for the [agency] to initiate an Informal, interactive process with the
individual with a disability . . . [to] identify the precise limitations resulting from the disability
and potential reasonable accommodations that could overcome those limitations.” 29 C.F.R. §
1630.2(o)(3); see also 29 C.F.R. Part 1630, App. § 1630.9; Enforcement Guidance on
Reasonable Accommodation at Question 5.

In this case, we presume, for purposes of analysis only, and without so finding, that Complainant
is an individual with a disability within the meaning of the Rehabilitation Act. We also find that
Complainant met the requisite skill, experience, education, and other job-related requirements of
her position of record.

With respect to Complainant’s denial of reasonable accommodation claim (claims 3 and 7) we
find that, despite Complainant’s claim to the contrary, the Agency was clearly involved in the
interactive process to provide Complainant with a reasonable accommodation or to transfer her
to a facility that would be easier to work given her restrictions. The record demonstrated that
while Complainant had many informal discussions with a variety of individuals regarding her
workplace hand injury, and had submitted some documentation to support her claim, she failed
to fully provide all required documentation. The Reasonable Accommodation Advisor (“RAA”)
noted that he spoke with Complainant several times regarding her injury, and informed her when
forms were not properly filled out. However, the RAA noted that despite these several attempts,
Complainant failed to provide the necessary documents for him to continue processing her
request. Complainant failed to demonstrate, below or on appeal, that the lack of accommodation
was due to discriminatory animus on part of the Agency.

Harassment

To establish a claim of discriminatory hostile environment harassment, Complainant must show
that: (1) he belongs to a statutorily protected class; (2) she was subjected to harassment in the
0120172500

11
form of unwelcome verbal or physical conduct involving the protected class; (3) the harassment
complained of was based on his statutorily protected class; (4) the harassment affected a term or
condition of employment and/or had the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with the
work environment and/or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment; and
(5) there is a basis for imputing liability to the Agency. Henson v. City of Dundee, 682 F.2d 897
(11th Cir. 1982).

In short, to prove her harassment claim, Complainant must establish that she was subjected to
conduct that was either so severe or so pervasive that a “reasonable person” in Complainant’s
position would have found the conduct to be hostile or abusive. Complainant must also prove
that the conduct was taken because of a protected basis – in this case, because of her race. Only
if Complainant establishes both of those elements, hostility and motive, will the question of
Agency liability present itself.

Complainant has cited various incidents that she found to be adverse or disruptive to her. For
example, the various incidents listed in claim 9, such as a coworker moving and/or commenting
about her lunch. The investigation went through exhaustive detail regarding every claim, and
what is evident is Complainant’s apprehension of her coworkers, and her perceived contentious
relationship between her and them. What is not demonstrative by the record is any evidence that
establishes that Complainant’s race played a factor in any of the actions. The record simply does
not show that the responsible Agency officials acted with discriminatory animus toward
Complainant, or failed to step in to a hostile work environment.

CONCLUSION

The Agency's final decision finding no discrimination is AFFIRMED.

STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0617)
The Commission may, in its discretion, reconsider the decision in this case if the Complainant or
the Agency submits a written request containing arguments or evidence which tend to establish
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.
Requests to reconsider, with supporting statement or brief, must be filed with the Office of
Federal Operations (OFO) within thirty (30) calendar days of receipt of this decision. A party
shall have twenty (20) calendar days of receipt of another party’s timely request for
reconsideration in which to submit a brief or statement in opposition.
0120172500

12
See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.405; Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive for 29 C.F.R.
Part 1614 (EEO MD-110), at Chap. 9 § VII.B (Aug. 5, 2015). All requests and arguments must
be submitted to the Director, Office of Federal Operations, Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission. Complainant’s request may be submitted via regular mail to P.O. Box 77960,
Washington, DC 20013, or by certified mail to 131 M Street, NE, Washington, DC 20507. In
the absence of a legible postmark, the request to reconsider shall be deemed timely filed if it is
received by mail within five days of the expiration of the applicable filing period. See 29 C.F.R.
§ 1614.604. The agency’s request must be submitted in digital format via the EEOC’s Federal
Sector EEO Portal (FedSEP). See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.403(g). The request or opposition must also
include proof of service on the other party.
Failure to file within the time period will result in dismissal of your request for reconsideration
as untimely, unless extenuating circumstances prevented the timely filing of the request. Any
supporting documentation must be submitted with your request for reconsideration. The
Commission will consider requests for reconsideration filed after the deadline only in very
limited circumstances. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.604(c).

COMPLAINANT’S RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (S0610)
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. If you
file a request to reconsider and also file a civil action, filing a civil action will terminate the
administrative processing of your complaint.

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.
0120172500

13
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

November 16, 2018
Date