[Redacted], Mirtha H., 1 Complainant,v.Thomas J. Vilsack, Secretary, Department of Agriculture (Forest Service), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Jun 29, 2021

Appeal No. 2020000199 (E.E.O.C. Jun. 29, 2021)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Mirtha H.,1 Complainant, v. Thomas J. Vilsack, Secretary, Department of Agriculture (Forest Service), Agency. Request No. 2021002791 Appeal No. 2020000199 Hearing Nos. 540-2015-00277X, 540-2016-00186X Agency Nos. FS-2015-00221, FS-2015-00656 DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION Complainant requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) reconsider its decision in Mirtha H. v. Dep’t of Agriculture, EEOC Appeal No. 2020000199 (Mar. 9, 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). On March 23, 2015, and September 17, 2015, Complainant filed her complaints alleging that she was subjected to discriminatory harassment based on her sex, national origin, disability, and in reprisal for prior EEO activity when: 1. On December 2, 2014, she was issued a Letter of Reprimand by her supervisor; 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. 2021002791 2 2. On July 11, 2014, she was forced to use annual leave to attend a coworker’s retirement luncheon; 3. During 2014, she was not permitted to telework despite requests made on January 14, June 20, July 15, and August 11, 2014; 4. On August 6, 2014, she was subjected to harassment when she overheard her supervisor and a coworker making snide comments about her and innuendoes about her work performance, generally degrading her professional abilities, and discussing her personal private medical information; 5. On June 21, 2015, she was informed that she was not selected for the New Mexico Leadership Development Program (“NMLDP”) after her supervisor failed to timely submit the supervisory assessment for her application in April 2015; 6. On June 4, 2014, her supervisor authorized her to attend only 2.5 days of a weeklong EEO/Special Emphasis Program Manager training course; and 7. During May 2015, she was denied the opportunity to serve on a detail assignment as a FS-0260-12, EEO Specialist. Complainant requested a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). The AJ issued a decision without a hearing finding no discrimination. The Agency issued its final order implementing the AJ’s decision. Complainant appealed, and the Commission’s prior decision affirmed the Agency’s decision. In her request, Complainant provides no evidence to warrant granting her request. The Commission emphasizes 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) (Aug. 5, 2015), 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. 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. 2020000199 remains the Commission's decision. There is no further right of administrative appeal on the decision of the Commission on this request. 2021002791 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 June 29, 2021 Date