[Redacted], Karolyn E., 1 Complainant,v.Robert Wilkie, Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Dec 17, 2020

Appeal Nos. 2019002890, 2019003497 (E.E.O.C. Dec. 17, 2020)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Karolyn E.,1 Complainant, v. Robert Wilkie, Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs, Agency. Request Nos. 2020005205 & 2020005206 Appeal Nos. 2019002890 & 2019003497 Agency Nos. 200J-0331-2017104029 & 200H-0304-2016104635 DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION Complainant requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) reconsider its decision in Karolyn E. v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Appeal Nos. 2019002890 & 2019003497 (August 4, 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). At the time of events giving rise to her complaints, Complainant worked as a Supervisory Veterans Service Representative (VSR)/Coach, GS-13, at the Agency’s Veterans Affairs Regional Office (VARO) in Providence, Rhode Island. In June 2016, Complainant was transferred to an Assistant Supervisory VSR/Assistant Coach, GS-12, position at the Agency’s VARO in St. Louis, Missouri. 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. 2020005205 & 2020005206 2 On October 3, 2016, and October 5, 2017, Complainant filed her complaints, which were consolidated by the Agency for processing, alleging discrimination and a hostile work environment based on race and disability when: 1. On July 15, 2015, management made Complainant step down from her Coach position and accept a Rating Quality Review Specialist (RQRS) position so that she could continue teleworking; 2. From July 16, 2015 to March 2016, management denied Complainant’s request for training for her RQRS position; 3. On August 4, 2015, management told Complainant that there would only be in-house and/or refresher training, and neither occurred; 4. On January 22, 2016, a Human Resources Specialist requested medical documentation from Complainant to substantiate continuation of her interim accommodation to authorize travel to attend RQRS Challenge training in Denver, Colorado; 5. On January 26, 2016, management informed Complainant that she would not be allowed to complete her RQRS Challenge training if she did not provide medical documentation allowing travel; 6. On June 16, 2016, management issued Complainant a lower performance evaluation rating than she deserved for fiscal year (FY) 2016; 7. Beginning August 2016, management failed to comply with Complainant’s request for reasonable accommodation; 8. On December 11, 2017, management disclosed Complainant’s confidential medical information to another employee; 9. On July 15, 2017, management forced Complainant to work overtime; 10. On September 14, 2017, management removed some of Complainant’s training duties; and 11. On December 7, 2017, management issued Complainant a lower performance evaluation rating than she deserved for FY 2017. Complainant requested an Agency decision. The Agency issued a decision finding that Complainant failed to prove the Agency subjected her to discrimination as alleged. Complainant appealed, and the Commission’s prior decision affirmed the Agency’s decision. 2020005205 & 2020005206 3 In her request, Complainant for the first time on request raises new matters which were not raised by her in the prior appeal, i.e., a privacy violation and her removal from her management position in March 2018. The Commission notes that new evidence generally will not be accepted in a request for reconsideration. See Houser v. Dep't of Homeland Sec., EEOC Request No. 0520110548 (Oct. 7, 2011) (citing Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive for 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 (EEO MD-110) (Aug. 5, 2015)). Further, the Commission emphasizes that a request for reconsideration is not a second appeal to the Commission. EEO MD-110, 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. 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 Nos. 2019002890 & 2019003497 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. 2020005205 & 2020005206 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 December 17, 2020 Date