[Redacted], Cathy M., 1 Complainant,v.Thomas J. Vilsack, Secretary, Department of Agriculture (Farm Service Agency), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Aug 4, 2021

Appeal No. 2020002266 (E.E.O.C. Aug. 4, 2021)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Cathy M.,1 Complainant, v. Thomas J. Vilsack, Secretary, Department of Agriculture (Farm Service Agency), Agency. Request No. 2021003058 Appeal No. 2020002266 Hearing Nos. 410-2017-00258X 541-2017-00108X 541-2017-00138X Agency Nos. FSA-2016-00587 FSA-2016-00895 FSA-2017-00105 DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION Complainant timely requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) reconsider its decision in EEOC Appeal No. 2020002266 (March 18, 2021). 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). Between January 27 and August 20, 2016, Complainant worked as a Program Technician, GS-7, at the Agency’s Farm Service Agency (FSA), Marion County Office in Georgia. 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. 2021003058 2 On June 21, 2016, Complainant filed a formal complaint (FSA-2016-00587) alleging that the Agency discriminated against her and subjected her to harassment on the bases of race and in reprisal for prior protected EEO activity when: 1. On May 26, her second level supervisor (District Director) sent her a threatening email; 2. From April 8, 2016 to April 21, 2016, her immediate supervisor (County Executive Director) continually requested her to provide him with a weekly-to-do-list, but has not requested the same task of other similarly situated employees; and 3. On March 31, 2016, her first and second level supervisors refused to promote her to the Lead Program Technician position, CO-08. On October 14, 2016, Complainant filed a second formal complaint (FSA-2016-00895) alleging that the Agency subjected her to discrimination based on sex, race, color, and in reprisal for prior EEO activity, consisting of the following claim: 4. On July 21, 2015, she learned that she was not selected as the Acting County Executive Director or Program Technician In-Charge, which would have resulted in a temporary promotion to the grade of CO-09. On January 5, 2017, Complainant filed a third formal complaint (FSA-2017-00105) alleging she was subjected to discrimination based on sex, race, age, and in reprisal for prior EEO activity when: 5. On November 15, 2016, she learned that she was not selected for the CO-1101-05/09, County Operations Trainee (COT), advertised under Vacancy Announcement Number GA-2016-0037. After its investigation into the complaints, the Agency provided Complainant with a copy of the report of investigation on each complaint and notice of right to request a hearing on her complaints before an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) Administrative Judge (AJ). Complainant requested a hearing. The Agency filed a motion for summary judgment. Complainant filed her response in opposition to summary judgment. The Agency filed its reply to Complainant’s response. The AJ subsequently issued a consolidated decision on the three complaints, granting summary judgment in favor of the Agency. The Agency issued its notice of final order fully implementing the AJ’s finding that Complainant failed to provide discrimination as alleged. Complainant appealed. In EEOC Appeal No. 2020002266, we concluded that the evidence of record fully supported the AJ’s decision that Complainant’s allegations of discrimination had not been proven. In her request for reconsideration of that decision, Complainant essentially repeats the same arguments made and considered during her original appeal. 2021003058 3 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. 2020002266 remains the Commission's decision. There is no further right of administrative appeal on the decision of the Commission on this request.2 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. 2 The Agency claimed that Complainant’s request for reconsideration was untimely filed. Given our denial of the reconsideration request for the reasons discussed above, we find it unnecessary to address this issue. 2021003058 4 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 August 4, 2021 Date