[Redacted], Jane P., 1 Complainant,v.Denis R. McDonough, Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs, Agency.Download PDFEqual Employment Opportunity CommissionAug 9, 2021Appeal No. 2020001390 (E.E.O.C. Aug. 9, 2021) Copy Citation U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Jane P.,1 Complainant, v. Denis R. McDonough, Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs, Agency. Request No. 2021003137 Appeal No. 2020001390 Hearing No. 480-2019-00239X Agency No. 200P-0605-2018101251 DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION Complainant timely requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) reconsider its decision in EEOC Appeal No. 2020001390 (April 7, 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). During the relevant time, Complainant was employed by the Agency as a Supervisory Medical Records Technician, GS-0675-09, at the Agency’s Health Care System in Loma Linda, California. On January 7, 2018 (and subsequently amended), Complainant filed a formal EEO complaint alleging that the Agency discriminated against her based on race (African American), sex (female), color (Brown), and disability when: 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. 2021003137 2 1. On December 28, 2017, Complainant’s supervisor (S1) issued Complainant a written counseling regarding a 10,000-encounter backlog. 2. On April 16, 2018, S1 served Complainant with a memorandum detailing her to the Ambulatory Care Center, a difficult distance for her to walk, in retaliation for her reporting his using a “swear word” in the office on April 12, 2018. 3. On July 6, 2018, the Chief denied Complainant’s accommodation request for telework, but instead provided a workspace at the corporate business center offices. 4. On July 19, 2018, S1 rated Complainant as less-than-satisfactory on her mid-year performance evaluation. 5. On September 28, 2018, Complainant was temporarily detailed to the Ambulatory Care Center. 6. From November 8, 2017, through January 7, 2018: a. S1 bypassed Complainant’s leadership role regarding her subordinate (CW1) by, for example, leaving work duty instructions with CW1 when S1 went on leave rather than with Complainant, and approving CW1’s overtime without Complainant’s knowledge; b. S1 removed Complainant’s overtime approval authorization; c. S1 threatened Complainant’s job and accused her of saying S1 had a relationship with CW1; d. S1 harassed Complainant regarding the whereabouts of staff performance evaluations; e. S1 undermined Complainant’s leadership role when he presented her subordinates with their performance evaluations instead of letting Complainant present them; f. S1 accused Complainant of contacting CW1 outside duty hours; g. S1 told Complainant, “tell me, what do you do all day?” and “you don’t do nothing but talk on the phone all day socializing, is what I’ve been told;” and h. S1 intentionally was absent when Complainant tried to turn in her office keys. After its investigation, the Agency provided Complainant with a copy of the report of investigation and notice of right to request a hearing before an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) Administrative Judge (AJ). Complainant timely requested a hearing. However, the AJ assigned to the matter subsequently issued a decision by summary judgment in favor of the Agency finding that Complainant was not subjected to discrimination as alleged. The Agency issued its final order adopting the AJ’s decision. Complainant appealed. In EEOC Appeal No. 2020001390, the Commission concluded that the evidence of record fully supported the AJ’s decision that Complainant’s allegations of discrimination had not been proven. 2021003137 3 In her request for reconsideration of that decision, Complainant essentially repeats the same arguments made and considered during her original appeal. 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. 2020001390 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. 2021003137 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 9, 2021 Date Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation