[Redacted], Janet Y. Taylor, 1 Complainant,v.Steven T. Mnuchin, Secretary, Department of the Treasury (Internal Revenue Service), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Dec 29, 2020

Appeal No. 2019002052 (E.E.O.C. Dec. 29, 2020)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Janet Y. Taylor,1 Complainant, v. Steven T. Mnuchin, Secretary, Department of the Treasury (Internal Revenue Service), Agency. Request No. 2021000280 Appeal No. 2019002052 Hearing No. 560-2017-00229X Agency No. IRS-16-0614-F DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION Complainant timely requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) reconsider its decision in EEOC Appeal No. 2019002052 (August 11, 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 worked as a Seasonal Contact Representative at the Agency’s Wage and Investment Service Center ins Kansas City, Missouri. Complainant filed an EEO complaint, which she later amended, alleging that the Agency discriminated against her and subjected her to a hostile work environment on the bases of race (African American), sex (female), and reprisal when: 1 Although it is the Commission's practice to assign a pseudonym to a decision that will be published, Complainant specifically requested that her real name be used on the decision, rather than a pseudonym. 2021000280 2 1. Since February 8, 2016, managers in Accounts Management (AM) Operations have harassed her for not taking phone calls even though they are aware that the phone at her desk is not working and management refuses to have the phone repaired. 2. Since February 8, 2016, AM Operations managers have monitored her work in a disparate manner and presented her with inaccurate phone and paper reviews. 3. Since April 28, 2016, a manager has been coming to her desk constantly, having Complainant go to the manager’s office, and requesting that Complainant sign a counseling memorandum. 4. On or about May 23, 2016, another manager counseled Complainant for not meeting with him regarding an investigation by Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) agents. 5. On August 4, 2016, the other manager issued Complainant a reprimand for not meeting with him on May 23, 2016, regarding results of the TIGTA investigation. 6. On April 5, 2016, Complainant became aware that she was denied a Within-Grade-Increase (WIGI) that should have been effective October 4, 2015. 7. On June 2, 2016, Complainant was issued two “Less than Fully Successful” Annual Performance Appraisals for the time periods of April 1, 2014 - March 31, 2015, and May 1, 2015 - April 30, 2016. Complainant initially requested a hearing, but subsequently withdrew her request. Our prior appellate decision affirmed the Agency’s final decision that concluded that Complainant failed to prove that the Agency subjected her to discrimination in violation of Title VII as alleged. The decision addressed each of Complainant’s claims. In her request for reconsideration, Complainant expresses her disagreement with the previous decision. 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. 2019002052 remains the Commission's decision. There is no further right of administrative appeal on the decision of the Commission on this request. 2021000280 3 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 December 29, 2020 Date