[Redacted], Tonya C., 1 Complainant,v.Janet Yellen, Secretary, Department of the Treasury (Internal Revenue Service), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Mar 8, 2021

Appeal No. 20190005281 (E.E.O.C. Mar. 8, 2021)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Tonya C.,1 Complainant, v. Janet Yellen, Secretary, Department of the Treasury (Internal Revenue Service), Agency. Request No. 2021001191 Appeal No. 20190005281 Hearing No. 440-2018-00055X Agency No. IRS-17-0477-F DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION Complainant timely requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) reconsider its decision in EEOC Appeal No. 20190005281 (October 21, 2020). 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 relevant time, Complainant worked for the Agency as an Internal Revenue Agent (IRA), GS-0512-11, for the Agency’s Small Business/Self-Employed Examination Operations, Field Examination, Exam-Midwest Area, Planning and Special Projects in Chicago, Illinois. Complainant signed a global settlement agreement with the Agency on May 6, 2016, agreeing to a reassignment from her position as an IRA, GS-0512-11, in the Agency’s Green Bay, Wisconsin 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. 2021001191 2 office to an IRA, GS-0512-11, position in the Agency’s Chicago office. Complainant transferred to the Chicago Office on July 10, 2016. On June 19, 2017, Complainant filed a formal EEO complaint alleging the Agency discriminated against her based on age (over 40), sex (female), and in reprisal for prior EEO activity when she discovered on June 2, 2017, that the Agency had not acted on the results of a desk audit of her position, which had been completed on April 19, 2017. After an investigation, the Agency provided Complainant with a copy of the report of investigation and notice of her right to request a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). Complainant timely requested a hearing. Over Complainant’s objections, the AJ assigned to the case granted the Agency’s Motion for Summary Judgment and issued a decision without a hearing on July 18, 2019. In her decision, the AJ determined that Complainant did not establish a case of discrimination or retaliation. The AJ determined that Complainant’s work was consistent with her pay and grade level by June 2, 2017. The AJ further found that Complainant had not shown any connection aside from her personal assertions between her protected bases and the alleged adverse action taken by the Agency. The AJ determined that Complainant had not shown that the Agency’s articulated, legitimate, non-discriminatory and non-retaliatory reasons were pretext for the Agency’s actions. The record reflected that Complainant’s training was not complete, so she was not receiving grade-appropriate work when she received the desk audit. The Agency, however, complied with the desk audit by subsequently assigning Complainant work consistent with her job description in June 2017. As a result, the AJ found Complainant was not subjected to discrimination or reprisal as alleged. The Agency adopted by AJ’s decision as its final order. Complainant appealed. In EEOC Appeal No. 20190005281, we affirmed the AJ’s decision. In the instant request for reconsideration, Complainant raises a variety of details regarding the alleged improprieties attendant the Agency process of the desk. However, the matters raised are merely an elaboration of matters which (a) were either raised during the original appeal or (b) readily could have been raised on appeal. The Commission emphasizes that a request for reconsideration is not a second appeal 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 Dep’t of Agric., EEOC Request No. 0520070736 (Aug. 20, 2007). A request for reconsideration is not the time for Complainant to raise new evidence or new arguments. 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 presented any persuasive evidence to support reconsideration of the Commission’s decision. To the extent Complainant wishes to pursue any new claims of discrimination, Complainant is advised to contact an EEO Counselor. 2021001191 3 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. 20190005281 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 March 8, 2021 Date