Tamara G.,1 Complainant,v.Steven T. Mnuchin, Secretary, Department of the Treasury, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Aug 30, 2019

2019003358 (E.E.O.C. Aug. 30, 2019)

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

Tamara G.,1
Complainant,

v.

Steven T. Mnuchin,
Secretary,
Department of the Treasury,
Agency.

Request No. 2019003358
Appeal No. 0120180599
Hearing No. 570-2015-00276X
Agency No. DO-14-0473-F, DO-15-1170-F

DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

Complainant timely requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or
Commission) reconsider its decision in Tamara G. v. Dep’t of the Treasury, EEOC Appeal No.
0120180599 (Apr. 10, 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 filed an EEO complaint alleging the Agency discriminated against her on the bases
of sex (female), race (African-American), and age (57) when:

1. On or about April 24, 2014, Complainant did not receive a STAR award;

2. On May 12, 2014, the Director (Caucasian, male, 44 years old) told Complainant
that she had to move her work location and he also changed her tour of duty;

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.
2019003358

2
3. On May 13, 2014, the Director told Complainant that she would no longer be able
to work weekends and holidays;

4. Since changing her work location, Complainant’s duties were reduced to handling
telephone calls;

5. Complainant has not been promoted to GS-12; and

6. On June 2, 2014, Complainant was detailed to the Treasury Executive Institute.

Complainant later filed a second EEO complaint alleging she was discriminated against in reprisal
for prior protected EEO activity when:

7. On or about March 17, 2015, the Agency notified her that she was required to
submit information for a Security Clearance Re-Investigation no later than April 1,
2015, for a position that she no longer occupied.

Following an investigation, Complainant requested a hearing before an EEOC Administrative
Judge (AJ). The AJ assigned to the matter granted the Agency’s motion for summary judgment
and issued a decision finding that Complainant had not been subjected to discrimination or reprisal
as alleged. The Agency subsequently issued a final order fully implementing the AJ’s decision.

In the appellate decision, the Commission affirmed the final order. The Commission determined
that the Agency had articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions for which
Complainant had not rebutted as pretextual. Specifically, with regard to claim (1), the Agency
explained that Complainant did not qualify for a STAR award. With respect to claims (2) – (4),
Complainant’s reassignments and duty hours resulted from a wholesale Agency redesign and
reorganization. As for claim (5), Complainant was not promoted because she was performing at a
minimally acceptable standard. Regarding claim (6), Complainant was reassigned to the Treasury
Executive Institute because she did not have an active Top Secret clearance with Sensitive
Compartmented Information access. Finally, with respect to claim (7), the Agency explained that
because it had been more than a year since Complainant’s security clearance was denied, it re-
initiated a review of Complainant’s security clearance, and during that review, Complainant
needed to submit additional information.

In her request for reconsideration, Complainant argues, for the first time, that a deposition in the
record was missing the last four pages which would have given the AJ pertinent information related
to her claim of discrimination.

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). Further, a request for reconsideration is not the time for
Complainant to raise new evidence or new arguments.
2019003358

3
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.
Complainant has not presented any argument or evidence tending to establish the existence of
either reconsideration criterion.

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. 0120180599 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

August 30, 2019
Date