[Redacted], Trena M., 1 Complainant,v.Denis R. McDonough, Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs (National Cemetery Administration), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Apr 26, 2021

Appeal No. 2020004541 (E.E.O.C. Apr. 26, 2021)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Trena M.,1 Complainant, v. Denis R. McDonough, Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs (National Cemetery Administration), Agency. Request No. 2021001792 Appeal No. 2020004541 Hearing No. 451-2019-00137X Agency No. 20DR-0040-2018104931 DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION Complainant requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) reconsider its decision in Trena M. v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Appeal No. 2020004541 (Jan. 5, 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 September 18, 2018, Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging that the Agency subjected her to a discriminatory hostile work environment because of her race, sex, and in reprisal for prior EEO activity when: 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. 2021001792 2 1. During February 2018, Complainant’s supervisor gave the selecting official a negative reference for Complainant for a position for which Complainant applied (GS-0669-13, vacancy announcement 999283). 2. On three occasions between April 30, 2018 to June 28, 2018, Complainant’s supervisor sent Complainant emails, labeling her rude and disrespectful. 3. On May 7, 2018, Complainant’s supervisor issued Complainant a letter of counseling, titled “Letter of Expectations.” 4. On June 29, 2018, Complainant’s supervisor proposed a reprimand for “Disrespectful Communications with your Supervisor” and “Failure to Follow Instructions.” The reprimand was upheld and issued on July 18, 2018. 5. On June 29, 2018, Complainant’s supervisor emailed Complainant, accusing her of refusing to meet with him. 6. On July 13, 2018, Complainant’s supervisor sent Complainant an assignment email with restricted permissions, which limited her ability to copy or forward the email. 7. On September 4, 2018, her supervisor sent Complainant an instant message referring to Complainant and another African-American as “shadow.” 8. On September 14, 2018, the supervisor took no action when Complainant informed him an employee referred to her as a “control freak.” 9. Beginning in May 2018 to the present, Complainant’s supervisor increased her assignments that required her to travel more. 10. On or about August 2018, Complainant’s supervisor violated her confidentiality with contact with Complainant’s ex-husband. 11. On August 10, 2018, she was denied travel to participate in mediation. 12. On October 23, 2018, Complainant’s supervisor issued her a fully satisfactory rating. 13. On an unspecified date, Complainant’s supervisor failed to provide her a Position Description which accurately reflected her duties in order to update her grade to a GS-14. 14. On December 17, 2018, the Acting Director of the Information Management and Business Support Service informed Complainant her position could not be upgraded and that if it were, she would have to compete for it. 15. On December 17, 2018, Complainant’s supervisor provided Human Resources with a list of her duties that did not adequately or correctly describe Complainant’s duties and responsibilities. 16. On January 8, 2019, Complainant was informed that her position had been realigned. 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 submits her subsequent EEO complaint and matters that are not at issue herein. Furthermore, she provides no evidence to warrant granting her request. The Commission emphasizes that a request for reconsideration is not a second appeal to the Commission. 2021001792 3 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. 2020004541 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 April 26, 2021 Date