Sadie M.,1 Complainant,v.Kirstjen M. Nielsen, Secretary, Department of Homeland Security (U.S. Coast Guard), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

May 25, 2018

0520180215 (E.E.O.C. May. 25, 2018)

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

Sadie M.,1
Complainant,

v.

Kirstjen M. Nielsen,
Secretary,
Department of Homeland Security
(U.S. Coast Guard),
Agency.

Request No. 0520180215

Appeal No. 0120180152

Agency No. HS-USCG-01592-2017

DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

Complainant timely requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or
Commission) reconsider its decision in EEOC Appeal No. 0120180152 (December 20, 2017).
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).

In her underlying complaint, Complainant claimed that she was discriminated against in reprisal
for her prior EEO activity under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), as amended,
42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., when:

1. On April 21, 2017, the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Manager contacted her via
telephone regarding her election in the EEO formal complaint process;

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.
0520180215

2
2. On April 21, 2017, the ADR Manager emailed her eight times pertaining to information
previously received by the Region 2, Deputy Civil Rights Director;

3. On April 25 and 26, 2017, the ADR Manager emailed her regarding her ADR election;

4. On April 26, 2017, Complainant failed to participate in the formal ADR process; and

5. On April 28, 2017, the Formal Complaints Manager called and emailed her regarding
revision of her previously accepted claims by the Agency, by questioning her bases and
issues.

In its final decision, the Agency dismissed the complaint pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.107(a)(8)
on the grounds that the complaint addressed Complainant’s dissatisfaction with the processing of
a prior complaint (Agency No. HS-USCG-00516-2017). The Agency determined that
Complainant’s allegations about the manner in which EEO staff contacted her regarding her
complaint and participation in mediation are clearly related to the processing of her previously
filed EEO complaint.

On appeal, the Commission affirmed the Agency’s dismissal of the complaint. The Commission
found that the complaint concerns the processing of a prior complaint.

In her request for reconsideration, Complainant argues that the Agency did not just contact her
regarding her participation in the ADR process, but that afterwards when she refused further ADR
participation, the Agency revised and distorted the previously accepted claims as a form of reprisal.

In response, the Agency asserts that Complainant’s allegations pertain exclusively to her
dissatisfaction with the Agency’s processing of her prior complaint.

We observe that Complainant has not presented sufficient persuasive evidence in support of her
position. It is clear that the claims raised by Complainant focus entirely on her dissatisfaction with
the Agency’s processing of her prior complaint. Dissatisfaction with the EEO process must be
raised within the underlying complaint, not as a new complaint. 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), at 9-18 (Aug. 5,
2015); 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. 0120180152 remains the Commission's
decision. There is no further right of administrative appeal on the decision of the Commission on
this request.
0520180215

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

May 25, 2018
Date

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

Jared F.,1
Complainant,

v.

Michael R. Pompeo,
Secretary,
Department of State,
Agency.

Request No. 0520180227
Appeal No. 0120180030
Agency No. DOS-0212-17

DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

Complainant requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or
Commission) reconsider its decision in EEOC Appeal No. 0120180030 (January 9, 2018). 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).

In his underlying complaint, Complainant alleged that the Agency subjected him to discrimination
in reprisal for prior protected EEO activity when:

1. The Agency failed to follow policies and procedures during a 2015 Diplomatic Security
(DS) investigation regarding Complainant’s clearance;
2. On November 30, 2015, Complainant’s security clearance was revoked; and
3. On December 2, 2015, Complainant’s position as a contractor in the Bureaus of
Overseas Buildings Operations (OBO) was terminated.

The Agency dismissed Complainant’s complaint on the grounds he failed to timely initiate EEO
Counselor contact. Complainant appealed the Agency’s dismissal to the Commission.

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.
0520180227

2
In our previous decision, the Commission affirmed the Agency’s dismissal of Complainant’s
complaint for untimely EEO Counselor contact.

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. 0120180030 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

May 23, 2018
Date