[Redacted], Cleora W., 1 Complainant,v.Andrew M. Saul, Commissioner, Social Security Administration, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Jun 29, 2021

Appeal No. 2020002394 (E.E.O.C. Jun. 29, 2021)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Cleora W.,1 Complainant, v. Andrew M. Saul, Commissioner, Social Security Administration, Agency. Request No. 2021002757 Appeal No. 2020002394 Hearing No. 490-2019-00058X Agency No. DAL-18-0462-SSA DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION Complainant timely requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) reconsider its decision in EEOC Appeal No. 2020002394 (March 11, 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). Complainant was employed by the Agency as a Title 2 Claims Specialist in the Agency’s facility in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging she was discriminated against on the bases of race (white), age, and reprisal when, on February 2, 2018, she was not selected for the position of Social Insurance Specialist (Claims Technical Specialist). Our prior appellate decision affirmed the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Administrative Judge’s (AJ) decision by summary judgment which found in favor of the Agency, 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. 2021002757 2 concluding Complainant failed to prove her discrimination claims. In her decision, the AJ found that Complainant failed to produce evidence that the Agency’s reasons for its actions were a pretext for discrimination. The AJ noted that while Complainant disagreed with some of the scoring competencies, she did not receive a higher score than the selectees and there was no evidence of a discriminatory motivation in the scoring. While Complainant was a well-qualified candidate, she did not establish that her qualifications were plainly superior to the selected candidates. In her request for reconsideration, Complainant expresses her disagreement with the previous decision, again questioning the Agency’s use of the scores. However, there is still no evidence of discrimination in the Agency’s reliance upon the scores. As noted by the AJ, Complainant was well-qualified, but has not shown that the alleged disparities in qualifications between herself and the selectees are “of such weight and significance that no reasonable person, in the exercise of impartial judgment, could have chosen the [selectees] over [her] for the job in question.” Cooper v. Southern Co., 390 F.3d 695, 732 (11th Cir. 2004); see also, Ash v, Tyson Foods, Inc., 126 S. Ct. 1195, 1197-1198 (2006). 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. 2020002394 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. 2021002757 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 June 29, 2021 Date