[Redacted], Merideth C, 1 Complainant,v.Alexander N. Mayorkas, Secretary, Department of Homeland Security, (Customs and Border Protection), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Jul 12, 2021

Appeal Nos. 2020001718, and, 2020001587, 2 (E.E.O.C. Jul. 12, 2021)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Merideth C,1 Complainant, v. Alexander N. Mayorkas, Secretary, Department of Homeland Security, (Customs and Border Protection), Agency. Request No. 2021002843 Appeal Nos. 2020001718 and 20200015872 Hearing No. 443-2019-00071X Agency No. CBP-01120-2018 DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION Complainant timely requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) reconsider its decision in Merideth C v. Department of Homeland Security, EEOC Appeal No. 2020001718 (March 15, 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 period at issue, Complainant was employed by the Agency as an Assistant Port Director, assigned to the Minneapolis Port of Entry, St. Paul. Minnesota. 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. 2 A duplicate appeal was inadvertently docketed under Appeal No. 2020001587, and a decision was adjudicated by the Commission on its merits. We will dispose of this duplicate appeal in the body of our decision, below. 3 2021002843 On April 30, 2018, Complainant filed a formal complaint, claiming discrimination based on sex and in reprisal for prior protected activity when: an Agency Director advised her that he did not want a male co-worker to be singled out for a mistake, although he did not share the same view when Complainant made a mistake; an Agency official “colluded” to grant a CBP Officer a special detail to work the Super Bowl; an Agency Manager failed to force a male employee to change his shift, which undermined Complainant’s leadership; an Agency official became angry with Complainant while discussing Complainant’s Letter of Reprimand; management official reduced overtime opportunities, which compelled Complainant to explain this decision to supervisors’ Complainant was notified that management would be deploying a team to review operations in Complainant’s area of responsibility; and Complainant received a letter of reprimand for alleged poor use of judgment. After an investigation, Complainant requested a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). The AJ subsequently issued a decision by summary judgment in favor of the Agency, concluding no discrimination or unlawful retaliation was established. The Agency issued a final order adopting the AJ’s decision. Complainant appealed, and the prior appellate decision affirmed the Agency’s final order. As a preliminary matter, we note that a duplicate appeal, under Appeal No. 2020001587 (April 2021), was inadvertently adjudicated on the merits, instead of being administrative closed as a duplicate of an already issued appeal. Under these circumstances, we VACATE the decision issued in Appeal No. 2020001587 (April 14, 2021), as the identical issues were addressed one month earlier in Appeal No. 2020001718 (March 15, 2021). In the instant request for reconsideration of Appeal No. 2020001718, Complainant submits a statement expressing disagreement with the appellate decision, A comparison of the arguments raised on appeal from the Agency’s final order and the arguments raised in the instant request, reflects that Complainant reiterates arguments previously made, or which could have been made below. However, we emphasize that a request for reconsideration is not a second appeal to the Commission. 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. 2020001718 remains the Commission's decision. There is no further right of administrative appeal on the decision of the Commission on this request. 4 2021002843 Finally, the Commission’s decision on the duplicate appeal, Appeal No. 2020001587, is VACATED, for the reason addressed above. 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 July 12, 2021 Date