[Redacted], Cassy W., 1 Complainant,v.Debra A. Haaland, Secretary, Department of the Interior, Agency.Download PDFEqual Employment Opportunity CommissionOct 12, 2022Appeal No. 2021004557 (E.E.O.C. Oct. 12, 2022) Copy Citation U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Cassy W.,1 Complainant, v. Debra A. Haaland, Secretary, Department of the Interior, Agency. Request No. 2022003396 Appeal No. 2021004557 Hearing No. 570-2019-01182X Agency No. DOI-OS-19-0080 DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION Complainant timely requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) reconsider its decision in EEOC Appeal No. 2021004557 (April 28, 2022). 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. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.405(c). Between 2005 and 2018, Complainant applied for various attorney vacancies at the Agency, but was not selected. Complainant has worked at another agency as an contracts attorney. On October 25, 2018, Complainant initiated informal EEO counseling but the matter was not resolved. On November 19, 2018, Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging that the Agency discriminated against her based on race (African-American), sex (sex), color (brown), and in reprisal for prior EEO-protected activity. On February 28, 2019, the Agency dismissed 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 2022003396 Complainant’s first four claims regarding non-selections between 2005 and 2017 for untimely EEO Counselor contact, under 29 C.F.R.§1614.107(a)(2). The Agency accepted Complainant’s discrimination claim regarding an August 2018 non-selection for a GS-15 Attorney-Advisor position advertised under vacancy announcement number SOL-2018-0044. Complainant applied for the position and was among three candidates referred for an interview. Complainant alleged that during her scheduled interview with three panel members, the selection official arrived late while the other two panel members left the interview early. The eventual selectee was a white female, who had previously worked for the Agency. On September 1, 2021, with regard to the 2018 issue, the Agency issued a final decision concluding Complainant had not established discrimination regarding the 2018 selection decision as alleged. Complainant appealed. In EEOC Appeal No. 2021004557 (Apr. 28, 2022), we affirmed the Agency’s conclusion that Complainant failed to prove discrimination with regard to the 2018 selection decision. On appeal, Complainant has also challenged the decision to dismiss one of her earlier claims for untimely EEO counseling. Complainant argued that she had timely contacted an EEO Counselor believing the Agency discriminatorily non-selected her in 2009, but the EEO Counselor had dissuaded her from further pursuing the claim further by falsely informing her one of the three selectees was also an African-American woman when this was not the case. We, however, concluded that Complainant had not pursued the 2009 claim with due diligence, and thus it was barred by the doctrine of laches. As such, we affirmed the dismissal of the 2009 non-selection claim. In requesting reconsideration, through Counsel, Complainant did not challenge our decision regarding the 2018 non-selection. However, Complainant again maintains that the Agency provided incorrect information which improperly lulled Complainant into withdrawing her otherwise timely claim concerning the 2009 non-selection. This is the very same argument made during the original appeal and already addressed by this Commission in our initial appellate decision. 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. 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. 2021004557 remains the Commission's decision. There is no further right of administrative appeal on the decision of the Commission on this request. 3 2022003396 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 October 12, 2022 Date Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation