Rochell F.,1 Complainant,v.Sonny Perdue, Secretary, Department of Agriculture (Forest Service), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Jan 8, 2020

2019004927 (E.E.O.C. Jan. 8, 2020)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013

Rochell F.,1
Complainant,

v.

Sonny Perdue,
Secretary,
Department of Agriculture
(Forest Service),
Agency.

Request No. 2019004927

Appeal No. 0120172948

Hearing No. 443-2014-00060X

Agency No. FS201300538

DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

Complainant timely requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or
Commission) reconsider its decision in EEOC Appeal No. 0120172948 (April 26, 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).

Complainant was employed by the Agency as a Regional Architect, GS-13/7, at the Agency’s
Engineering Department, Eastern Region facility in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Complainant filed
an EEO complaint alleging that the Agency discriminated against her on the bases of disability,
age and reprisal when she was denied reasonable accommodation and subjected to a hostile work
environment, raising 10 incident that included, but were not limited to, denial of leave requests, a
failure to safeguard private personnel documents, failure to extend provisional accommodations

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.
2019004927

2
previously granted, and requests to Complainant’s coworkers for input on her performance
review.

Our prior appellate decision affirmed the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Administrative Judge’s (AJ) lengthy decision by summary judgment which found in favor of the
Agency, concluding Complainant failed to prove her discrimination claims. In his decision, the
AJ found that Complainant failed to produce evidence that the Agency’s proffered reasons for its
actions were a pretext for discrimination. The AJ specifically found that the responsible
management officials articulated legitimate, non-discriminatory/non-retaliatory reasons for all
actions taken with respect to Complainant’s employment. With respect to Complainant’s
reasonable accommodation claim, the AJ found that the Agency provided Complainant with the
reasonable accommodation that her physician indicated she needed. The Agency gave
Complainant opportunities to telework, as well as private/separate spaces within the office. The
Agency also limited her face-to-face contact with her supervisor and allowed her to work a
flexible schedule that included ad-hoc telework. Finally, the AJ noted that the Agency had no
duty to provide Complainant with the exact accommodation she requested, and that agencies do
not have an obligation to change a person’s supervisor as a reasonable accommodation.

In her request for reconsideration, Complainant expresses her disagreement with the previous
decision, and references arguments she has made previously that were part of the record,2 as well
as referencing specific documents in the record. 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. 0120172948 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.

2 Complainant did not make any arguments when she filed her initial appeal.
2019004927

3

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 8, 2020
Date