[Redacted], Verdell A., 1 Complainant,v.Ryan D. McCarthy, Secretary, Department of the Army, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Jan 14, 2021

Appeal No. 2019002291 (E.E.O.C. Jan. 14, 2021)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Verdell A.,1 Complainant, v. Ryan D. McCarthy, Secretary, Department of the Army, Agency. Request No. 2020005499 Appeal No. 2019002291 Hearing No. 560-2017-00127X Agency No. ARSILL16JAN00067 DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION Complainant timely requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) reconsider its decision in EEOC Appeal No. 2019002291 (April 30, 2019). 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 a Command Secretary at Fort Sill, Oklahoma. On February 26, 2016, Complainant filed a formal EEO complaint alleging that the Agency discriminated against her based on race (African-American), sex, (female), and retaliation (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. 2020005499 2 a. on November 3, 2015, the Deputy Commandant issued her a memorandum concerning leave, job requirements, early retirement, and also asked that within 10 days of receiving the memorandum that she disclose any medical disabilities, prognosis, limitations and restrictions that could prevent her from performing the essential duties of her job, and stated that failure to provide such information could aversively impact her future decision to apply for medical retirement; b. on January 20, 2016, management extended her annual evaluation rating period until May 2016, for no reason; c. on January 28, 2016, she was issued a Memorandum of Concern; d. in February 2016, she was subjected to monitoring of her computer and any phone call she made or received, and she witnessed someone accessing her computer; e. Network Enterprise Command (NEC) gave unauthorized access to her email account and computer which aided the continuous harassment; and f. on numerous occasions after the Complainant filed her EEO complaint and resigned from her job, management continued the harassment and retaliation against her by illegally assessing and tampering with her medical history and appointment schedule. Specifically, Agency officials continued to follow her and interfered with her medical care, and in an appointment on February 13, 2018, her care was degraded due to outside influences. In its final decision, the Agency found no discrimination. The Agency stated that assuming arguendo, Complainant established a prima facie case of discrimination based on race, sex and retaliation, Agency management articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions. The Agency further found that Complainant failed to establish that the Agency’s articulated reasons for its actions were pretext for race, sex and retaliation. In EEOC Appeal No. 2019002291, we concluded that the evidence of record fully supported the Agency’s decision that Complainant’s allegations of discrimination had not been proven. In her request for reconsideration of that decision, Complainant raises new arguments not previously presented in this case. Complainant now asserts that she was never served with previously litigated documents, and that background information, which was arbitrarily added or included in this complaint by the Agency, “does not reflect what I submitted to EEO officials.” She further stated that Agency officials “don’t have the right nor authority to rewrite history for the advantage of the Agency and employees involved.” However, Complainant has made no showing that these arguments were not available to her during the original appeal. 2020005499 3 We emphasize that a request for reconsideration is not a second appeal to the Commission. See EEO MD-110, Ch. 9, § VII.A. 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. 2019002291 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 January 14, 2021 Date