[Redacted], Frida L., 1 Complainant,v.Michael S. Regan, Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Jul 7, 2021

Appeal No. 2020001235 (E.E.O.C. Jul. 7, 2021)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Frida L.,1 Complainant, v. Michael S. Regan, Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, Agency. Request No. 2021002991 Appeal No. 2020001235 Hearing No. 550201900400X Agency No. 20160003R09 DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION Complainant requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) reconsider its decision in Frida L. v. Environment Protection Agency, EEOC Appeal No. 2020001235 (Mar. 24, 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). On December 3, 2015, Complainant filed a formal EEO complaint alleging that the Agency subjected her to a hostile work environment/harassment and discriminated against her on the bases of physical disability and in reprisal for prior protected EEO activity when: 1. Beginning in December 2013, her supervisor (“S1”), did not respond to her requests to discuss the classification of her new GS-7 position; 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. 2021002991 2 2. In February 2014, S1 gave her instructions on how to properly report an anticipated tardy arrival to work; 3. On May 20, 2014, S1 informed her that she had not read the self-evaluation Complainant submitted for her mid-year performance appraisal; 4. In July 2014, S1 informed her that she did not believe Complainant's duties justified a 40- hour work week; 5. On July 8 and 9, 2014, S1 reminded Complaint of deadlines for existing assignments; 6. On July 9, 2014, S1 counseled her regarding the poor quality of her work and then called her into her office every 20 minutes to monitor her progress; 7. In July 2014, S1 delayed the approval of Complainant’s travel voucher for about one month; 8. In August 2014 and December 2014, S1 ignored her requests to apply for a skills marketplace project and to join Toastmasters; 9. On October 15, 2014, S1 told her that she appeared unhappy in her probationary position and may not be "the best fit for the office;" 10. On December 1, 2014, S1 cautioned her about requesting leave which she had not yet accrued; and 11. On September 6, 2015, she was terminated from her probationary position. Complainant requested a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). The AJ issued a decision without a hearing finding no discrimination. The Agency issued its final order implementing the AJ’s decision. Complainant appealed, and the Commission’s prior decision affirmed the Agency’s decision. In her request, Complainant provides no evidence to warrant granting her request. The Commission emphasizes that 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) (Aug. 5, 2015), at 9-18; 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. 2021002991 3 The decision in EEOC Appeal No. 2020001235 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 July 7, 2021 Date