0520170618
01-18-2018
Maricela P,1 Complainant, v. Ryan K. Zinke, Secretary, Department of the Interior (National Park Service), Agency.
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Maricela P,1
Complainant,
v.
Ryan K. Zinke,
Secretary,
Department of the Interior
(National Park Service),
Agency.
Request No. 0520170618
Appeal No. 0120161630
Hearing No. 550-2014-00291X
Agency No. NPS140036
DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
Complainant timely requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) reconsider its decision in EEOC Appeal No. 0120161630 (August 8, 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).
Complainant worked as a Ranger, under a term agreement, and was assigned to the Golden Gate national Recreation Area. Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging that the Agency discriminated against her and subjected her to harassment on the basis of sex (female) when, between February and September of 2013, (i) she was advised to follow the chain of command on three occasions; (ii) in March, her schedule was changed from four days a week, 10 hours a day (4-10) to a five days a week, 8 hours a day (5-8); (iii) she was threatened in March that her employment contract might not be renewed; (iv) she was subjected to demeaning comments on two occasions; (v) she was advised that she did not properly "call out" in April regarding her absence and the incident would be documented; (vi) in May she was asked why she was not at her duty station and told that her response would have to be confirmed; (vii) she was not given a written mid-performance review; (viii) she was advised in July that because she had been charged three hours of AWOL any overtime work would require prior approval; and (ix) on September 30, 2013, her term of employment was not renewed.
Our prior appellate decision affirmed the EEOC Administrative Judge's (AJ) decision by summary judgment which found in favor of the Agency, concluding Complainant failed to prove her discrimination and harassment claims. The decision noted that all term employees were put on an eight hour a day schedule to address operational needs. The AJ found that Complainant was not legally aggrieved as a result of not receiving a mid year review, being exposed to gossip and feeling that she was not believed, advised to follow the chain of command, told that her schedule could not be changed because of operational needs, and that if her performance did not improve she would not receive off-Island auxiliary assignments, and her term employment might not be renewed. As to the remaining claims involving AWOL and not having her term employment renewed, the AJ found that the Agency offered legitimate non-discriminatory reasons with respect to these actions. Complainant was reprimanded because she did not report for duty on April 25, 2013, after being on leave, and did not inform her supervisor or other officials within her ranks. Her term of employment was not renewed because of her performance shortcomings and misconduct. Finally, the AJ found that Complainant did not show that Complainant failed to set forth a viable claim of harassment, in that the events were commonplace occurrences and taken together were not sufficiently severe or pervasive.
In her request for reconsideration, Complainant expresses her disagreement with the previous decision and submits many of the arguments that she previously made. 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.
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. 0120161630 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 18, 2018
__________________
Date
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
0520170618