U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Sanjuanita A.,1 Complainant, v. Alejandro N. Mayorkas, Secretary, Department of Homeland Security, (Federal Emergency Management Agency), Agency. Request No. 2021004710 Appeal No. 2020002843 Agency No. HS-FEMA-00635-2017 DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION Complainant timely requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) reconsider its decision in Sanjuanita A. v. Department of Homeland Security, EEOC Appeal No. 2020002843 (July 19, 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). 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. 3 2021004710 During the relevant time, Complainant worked for the Agency as a Program Services Specialist in New York, New York. Complainant contacted an EEO Counselor to initiate the EEO complaint process. On September 25, 2019, Complainant and the Agency entered into a settlement agreement which resolved the matter. The settlement agreement provided, in pertinent part, that the Agency would provide Complainant a lump sum payment of $140,000, and would agree that in processing Complainant’s voluntary resignation, it would enter no remark in the Standard Form-50 indicative of separation in lieu of removal, or that the separation was other than a voluntary separation. By letter dated December 30, 2019, Complainant through counsel, alleged breach, and that Complainant had entered into the subject settlement agreement under duress and coercion. In its January 27, 2020 decision, the Agency found no breach. The Agency determined that Complainant was not coerced into entering the subject agreement, and that it had met its affirmative obligations required by the agreement. Complainant appealed that decision. In EEOC Appeal No. 2020002843, the Commission affirmed the Agency’s final decision finding no breach, as well as the finding that Complainant was not coerced into entering into the agreement. In the instant request for reconsideration, Complainant submits a brief expressing disagreement with the appellate decision. Along with raising arguments addressing the issue of whether the Agency met its affirmative obligations contained in the subject agreement, Complainant raises duplicative arguments addressing the issue of Complainant being coerced into entering the agreement. However, Complainant raised the issue below, and the prior decision expressly notes that Complainant detailed this issue “at length” and found no coercion. The Commission also found that the Agency complied with the substance of the agreement. 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. 2020002843 remains the Commission's decision. There is no further right of administrative appeal on the decision of the Commission on this request. 4 2021004710 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 December 23, 2021 Date
