[Redacted], Sara S., 1 Complainant,v.Christine Wormuth, Secretary, Department of the Army, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Jun 29, 2021

Appeal No. 2020001204 (E.E.O.C. Jun. 29, 2021)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Sara S.,1 Complainant, v. Christine Wormuth, Secretary, Department of the Army, Agency. Request No. 2021002986 Appeal No. 2020001204 Hearing No. 530-2016-00142X Agency No. ARUSAR15MAR00772 DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION Complainant requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) reconsider its decision in Sara S. v. Dep’t of the Army, EEOC Appeal No. 2020001204 (Mar. 16, 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 April 10, 2016, Complainant filed an EEO complaint, as amended, alleging that the Agency discriminated against her based on her disability, age, national origin, and in reprisal for prior EEO activity when: 1. Since February 19, 2015, the person who was her first line supervisor (Civilian S1) in her civilian role and her third line supervisor (Military S3) in her SSG role created a false 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. 2021002986 2 mental health history to support an aptitude rating on an official civilian employment related document; 2. On or about February 20, 2015, she received a negative performance counseling; 3. On February 20, 2015, she was referred but not interviewed or selected for the position of Unit Administrator, GS-0303-07 with the United States Army Reserve (USAR) in Altoona, Pennsylvania under Vacancy Announcement NCDEI54790421297996; 4. On or about March 6, 2015, Civilian S1/Military S3 ordered her to undergo a mental health evaluation for her civilian employment, citing age-related mental deficiencies as justification; 5. On March 13, 2015, Civilian S1/Military S3 emailed her at her civilian account and copied her second line supervisor (Civilian S2) in her civilian role who also supported the Battalion Commander, notifying her of the above directed mental health evaluation. Subsequently, S2 called her, sent an email to her home email and a memorandum to the entire training section regarding the above mental health evaluation; and 6. On July 1, 2015, she was instructed to tum in her keys, banned from all 316th ESC. buildings and was placed on Administrative Leave. 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. 2020001204 remains the Commission's decision. There is no further right of administrative appeal on the decision of the Commission on this request. 2021002986 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