U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Evelina M.,1 Complainant, v. Pete Gaynor, Acting Secretary, Department of Homeland Security (Federal Emergency Management Agency), Agency. Request No. 2021000248 Appeal No. 2020004585 Hearing No. 570-2019-01257X Agency No. HSFEMA010422017 DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION Complainant timely requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) reconsider its decision in Evelina M. v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., EEOC Appeal No. 2020004585 (Sept. 24, 2020). 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, an applicant for a contractor position at the Agency as a Housing Inspector in Winchester, Virginia, filed an EEO complaint alleging that the Agency discriminated against her on the bases of race (African-American) and in reprisal for prior protected EEO activity when: on March 3, 2017, Complainant was informed that her Public Trust Security Clearance was denied, and she was denied employment. 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. 2021000248 2 Following an investigation, Complainant requested a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). The AJ assigned to matter issued a summary judgment decision finding that Complainant did not prove she was subjected to discrimination or reprisal. The Agency issued a final order fully adopting the AJ’s decision. The appellate decision affirmed the final order finding that the AJ correctly determined that the preponderance of the evidence did not establish that Complainant was discriminated against by the Agency as alleged. In the instant request for reconsideration, Complainant reiterates arguments she set forth in her initial appeal. Specifically, Complainant argues that the AJ inappropriately issued a summary judgment decision by failing to address Complainant’s pending motion to compel discovery from the Agency. 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. The Commission finds that the arguments raised by Complainant in the instant request for reconsideration were largely raised in her previous appeal, fully considered, and rejected. Complainant has not shown that the AJ erred in finding that she failed to set forth sufficient facts showing that there was a genuine issue still in dispute. The Commission finds that the AJ's decision appropriately indicated that the record was fully developed; that the AJ considered all of the record evidence in the light most favorable to Complainant; and that the evidence established that Complainant failed to show that she was subjected to discrimination as alleged. In sum, Complainant has not presented any evidence establishing that the Commission erred in finding that the AJ properly granted summary judgment in this matter. Moreover, the Commission finds that Complainant has not presented any evidence to support reconsideration of the Commission's finding that she failed to show that she was subjected to discrimination. 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. 2020004585 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. 2021000248 3 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 13, 2021 Date
