Justine R.,1 Complainant,v.Sonny Perdue, Secretary, Department of Agriculture (Forest Service), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Jan 31, 2020

2019005955 (E.E.O.C. Jan. 31, 2020)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Justine R.,1 Complainant, v. Sonny Perdue, Secretary, Department of Agriculture (Forest Service), Agency. Request No. 2019005955 Appeal No. 0120181093 Agency No. FS201700665 DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION Complainant requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) reconsider its decision in Justine R. v. Dep’t of Agric., EEOC Appeal No. 0120181093 (June 25, 2019).2 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). 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. 2 Complainant filed the instant request for reconsideration approximately two months after the Commission’s appellate decision, which is beyond the regulatory timeframe. In her request, Complainant detailed how she experienced severe emotional distress following a family tragedy. EEOC Regulation 29 C.F.R. § 1614.604(c) provides that all time limits are subject to waiver, estoppels, and equitable tolling. Accordingly, under the specific circumstances present, the Commission finds adequate justification for exercising our discretion under this authority to excuse any delay by Complainant in filing her request for reconsideration. 2019005955 2 In the underlying complaint, Complainant alleged that the Agency discriminated against her based on her disability (right rotator cuff syndrome) when: (1) from August 22, 2016 through May 23, 2017, management did not provide her compensation for multiple official hours of labor; and (2) from September 21, 2016 through the present, management failed to process her reasonable accommodation request in a timely manner. Following the investigation, the Agency issued a final decision finding no discrimination. Our appellate decision found that Complainant failed to prove her claims as alleged. With respect to Claim 1, we noted that Complainant admitted that she did not include the relevant hours on her regular time and attendance sheets submitted for approval during the relevant period. We also determined that the record showed that management approved all hours submitted by Complainant. With respect to Claim 2, we found that although it took months for the accommodation request to be approved, much of the delay was due to Complainant’s extended absences from work, as well as her delays in completing the necessary forms to provide her with requested assistive technology. As a result, we found that Complainant was not subjected to discrimination or denied reasonable accommodation. The Commission emphasizes that a request for reconsideration is not a second appeal. 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. 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. 0120181093 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. 3 We note that Complainant did not raise any arguments on the merits. 2019005955 3 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 31, 2020 Date