Waltraud R.,1 Complainant,v.Andrew M. Saul, Commissioner, Social Security Administration, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Dec 18, 2019

2019005730 (E.E.O.C. Dec. 18, 2019)

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

Waltraud R.,1
Complainant,

v.

Andrew M. Saul,
Commissioner,
Social Security Administration,
Agency.

Request No. 2019005730

Appeal No. 0120181382

Agency No. ODAR170038SSA

DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

Complainant timely requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or
Commission) reconsider its decision in Waltraud R. v. Soc. Sec. Admin., EEOC Appeal No.
0120181382 (July 11, 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).

In her formal complaint, Complainant, a GS-0950-9 Paralegal Specialist/Case Manager at the
Agency's Office of Disability Adjudication and Review, National Hearing Center in Chicago,
Illinois, alleged that she was subjected to discrimination and a hostile work environment based on
her disability and in reprisal for prior protected EEO activity when:

1. On October 17, 2016, the Agency issued her a notice of Official Suspension for three
days, effective October 26, 2016;

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.
2019005730

2
2. From October 29, 2014 to March 10, 2017, the Agency subjected her to a hostile work
environment in terms of her working conditions, critical statements, teasing,
assignment of duties, and vandalism of her car; and

3. On October 21, 2015, the Agency failed to reasonably accommodate her disability
when her ergonomic chair was switched with a broken chair.

The Agency dismissed several additional claims as untimely raised with an EEO counselor.
Following an investigation, the Agency issued a final decision finding that Complainant had not
been subjected to discrimination, reprisal, or a hostile work environment.

In the appellate decision, the Commission affirmed the Agency’s dismissal of Complainant’s
untimely claims and affirmed the Agency’s finding of no discrimination. The Commission
determined that the Agency had articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions.
Specifically, the Agency explained that Complainant was suspended for conduct unbecoming a
Federal employee. According to the Agency, Complainant was loud, disruptive, and
argumentative with her supervisor and sent inflammatory emails to higher-level managers.

In addition, the Commission found that the alleged incidents were insufficiently severe or
pervasive to establish a hostile work environment and that there was no evidence that the conduct
at issue was based on discriminatory or retaliatory animus. Finally, the Commission found that
the Agency reasonably accommodated Complainant when it provided her with an ergonomic chair.
When that chair broke, management provided her with the most comfortable chair available at the
time, an Administrative Law Judge’s chair, until a replacement ergonomic chair arrived. Contrary
to Complainant’s assertions, the Commission found the Agency took reasonable steps to
accommodate Complainant. Accordingly, the Commission found that Complainant had not been
subjected to discrimination, reprisal, or a hostile work environment as alleged.

In her request for reconsideration, Complainant contends that she was subjected to discrimination.
Complainant argues that her due process rights were violated when she was suspended because
the Agency did not follow proper procedure. Complainant argues that the Commission
erroneously determined that her hostile work environment consisted of “petty annoyances,
supervisor conflicts and isolated incidents.” Moreover, Complainant maintains that she
established causation because she testified in an EEO complaint against managers. Further,
Complainant, as in her initial appeal to the Commission, contends that management officials
interfered with her Americans with Disabilities Act protections.

The Commission emphasizes that a request for reconsideration is not a second appeal. Equal
Employment Opportunity Management Directive for 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 (EEO MD-110), Chap.
9 § VI.A (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.
2019005730

3
Complainant has not done so here. Complainant has not presented any persuasive evidence to
support reconsideration of the Commission’s decision.

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. 0120181382 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

December 18, 2019
Date