[Redacted], Mellody Estella M. Huntley, 1 Complainant,v.Kilolo Kijakazi, Acting Commissioner, Social Security Administration, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Sep 29, 2021

Appeal No. 2020004278 (E.E.O.C. Sep. 29, 2021)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Mellody Estella M. Huntley,1 Complainant, v. Kilolo Kijakazi, Acting Commissioner, Social Security Administration, Agency. Request No. 2021005163 Appeal No. 2020004278 Agency No. CHI-19-0938 DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION Complainant timely requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) reconsider its decision in EEOC Appeal No. 2020004278 (September 23, 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). Complainant was employed by the Agency as a Legal Assistant in Oak Brook, Illinois, from July 2007 until March 15, 2019. 1 We note that documents submitted by Complainant express a concern that our prior decision’s use of a pseudonym, in this instance, “Candi R”, somehow reflects that the matter was filed by a third party (Candi R), which has resulted in possible identity theft. We stress that there is no third party involved. The use of a pseudonym is a routine practice in Commission decisions, to protect the identity of a complainant when a decision is published to non-parties, including on the Commission’s website. Complainant is advised to take note that, given her concerns, we have elected not to use a pseudonym in this decision. 2 2021005163 On September 9, 2019, Complainant filed an appeal with the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) when the Agency terminated her employment effective September 9, 2019. The MSPB accepted jurisdiction over Complainant’s appeal and docketed it as MSPB Docket No. CH-0752- 19-0568-I-1. In November 2019, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) approved Complainant’s application for disability retirement. On November 25, 2019, Complainant requested that her MSPB appeal be dismissed because she had been granted disability retirement. The MSPB dismissed Complainant’s appeal “without prejudice” because Complainant had not yet received an annuity from OPM. It was anticipated that the annuity would apply retroactively to her last day in work status. Complainant, however, subsequently refiled an MSPB appeal (MSPB Docket No. CH-0752-19- 0568-I-2) because she determined that the Agency violated the terms of a purported “retirement annuity settlement.” The Agency responded that it did not enter into such a settlement. On June 10, 2020, the MSPB dismissed Complainant’s new appeal, finding that Complainant did not produce any fully executed agreement, any evidence regarding an oral settlement agreement, and failed to show the Agency breached any agreement. Complainant then filed a Petition for Review with the MSPB, that is currently pending. On July 21, 2020, Complainant filed an appeal with this Commission, stating, in pertinent part, that: The agency was supposed to upload my EEOC and MSPB Appeal to my pending appeal CH-0752-19-0568-I-2, with my reinstatement eligibility[;] retroactive pay; promotion as an Attorney with an honorary degree; a house[;] with punitive and compensatory damage monetary awards; and full regular retirement. I never received the Retirement Annuity Agreement from [three Agency officials]. In our prior appellate decision, the Commission dismissed Complainant’s appeal. First, the Commission found that to the extent that Complainant was attempting to appeal the MSPB dismissal relating to the purported “retirement annuity settlement, the Commission has no jurisdiction over such matters. Second, the Commission found that Complainant acknowledged that the matter is still pending before the MSPB. Finally, regarding the job termination, the Commission noted that Complainant filed an appeal with the MSPB, and that the appeal was subsequently withdrawn. In the instant request for reconsideration, Complainant has uploaded numerous documents, in a manner similar to the numerous documents submitted in the prior appeal. We determine that Complainant’s submissions do not address their relevance to the matter before us in the instant request for reconsideration, as we had similarly determined regarding Complainant’s voluminous submissions in the prior appeal. We emphasize that a request for reconsideration is not a second appeal to the Commission. 3 2021005163 Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive for 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 (EEO MD-110), Chap. 9 § VI.A (Aug. 5, 2015); 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. The decision in EEOC Appeal No. 2020004278 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 September 29, 2021 Date