[Redacted], Kristen M., 1 Complainant,v.Janet L. Yellen, Secretary, Department of the Treasury (U.S. Mint), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Aug 17, 2021

Appeal No. 2020001593 (E.E.O.C. Aug. 17, 2021)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Kristen M.,1 Complainant, v. Janet L. Yellen, Secretary, Department of the Treasury (U.S. Mint), Agency. Request No. 2021003078 Appeal No. 2020001593 Hearing No. 470-2019-00182X Agency No. MINT-18-0477 DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION Complainant timely requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) reconsider its decision in EEOC Appeal No. 2020001593 (March 31, 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). At the time of the events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant was employed by the Agency as a Police Officer, TR-08, at the Agency’s Fort Knox Bullion Depository in Fort Knox, Kentucky. On June 7, 2018, Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging discrimination by the Agency on the bases of disability and in reprisal for prior protected EEO activity 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. 2021003078 2 1. Based on her disability Complainant was denied a reasonable accommodation with regard to the Agency’s smoking policy; 2. In retaliation for requesting a reasonable accommodation, Complainant was issued a Letter of Expectations on April 24, 2018, and then counseled for “bullying” a smoker on May 30, 2018. 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. The Agency submitted a motion for summary judgement, which Complainant opposed. The AJ subsequently issued a decision by summary judgment in favor of the Agency. The Agency issued its final order adopting the AJ’s finding that Complainant failed to prove discrimination or reprisal as alleged. In his decision, the AJ noted while Complainant claimed she was denied a reasonable accommodation based on her disability, the Agency took actions to ensure that Complainant would not be exposed to second-hand smoke or third-hand, residual cigarette odors. For instance, Agency management verbally counseled smokers and employees who were caught violating the Agency’s smoking policies. In addition, Agency management moved designated smoking areas further away from entry points, and installed air purifiers to reduce third-hand residual cigarette orders. Agency management also repeatedly told Complainant that she could call a supervisor to relieve her of her post or switch posts if she smelled third-hand residual cigarette odors. Complainant acknowledged the numerous actions made by the Agency had been successful in eradicating the problem. The AJ further noted that the Agency did not retaliate against Complainant by issuing her a Letter of Expectations dated April 24, 2018. The AJ noted that the letter outlined the step that Complainant would take to “minimize the impact of residual smoke odors on [her].” Moreover, the AJ determined that Complainant had not established a disputed issue of material fact and summary judgment for the Agency was appropriate. In EEOC Appeal No. 2020001593, we concluded that the evidence of record fully supported the AJ’s decision that Complainant’s allegations of discrimination had not been proven. 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. 2021003078 3 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. 2020001593 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 August 17, 2021 Date