Jacquetta C.,1 Complainant,v.Sonny Perdue, Secretary, Department of Agriculture (Food Safety and Inspection Service), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Jun 21, 2019

2019002764 (E.E.O.C. Jun. 21, 2019)

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

Jacquetta C.,1
Complainant,

v.

Sonny Perdue,
Secretary,
Department of Agriculture
(Food Safety and Inspection Service),
Agency.

Request No. 2019002764

Appeal No. 0120172500

Hearing No. 560-2017-00082X

Agency No. FSIS-2016-00389

DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

Complainant timely requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or
Commission) reconsider its decision in Jacquetta C. v. Dep’t of Agric., EEOC Appeal No.
0120172500 (Nov. 16, 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).

Complainant, a Food Inspector at the Tyson’s Food facility in Holcomb, Kansas, filed a formal
EEO complaint alleging that the Agency subjected her to discrimination and a hostile work
environment on the basis of race (African-American) when:

1. On May 3, 2016, she was terminated from her position as a Food Inspector, GS-1862-
4, during her probationary period;

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.
2019002764

2

2. On February 26, 2016, Complainant was issued a Letter of Instruction (LOI);

3. On various occasions including February 11, 2016, Complainant's request for both a
reasonable accommodation and to discuss her hand injury went unanswered2;

4. On January 12, 2016, Complainant’s evening shift rotations were disrupted because of
the preferences of other trainees;

5. On or about December 2015, two peers received permanent day shifts, but Complainant
did not receive the same opportunity;

6. On various occasions including December 2015 and January 6, 2016, Complainant was
not given adequate training (i.e., in handling knives and watching video while cutting),
because of a language barrier between her and her Hispanic trainers;

7. On an unspecified date, Complainant’s request to be transferred went unanswered;

8. On an unspecified date, Complainant was penalized for inquiring about her Time and
Attendance (T&A) reports and assisting a colleague with T&As, while Hispanic
colleagues were allowed to work on T&A in the locker room; and

9. Additional incidents of harassment including, but not limited to:

a. from December 1-28, 2015, Complainant was not issued keys to the women’s
locker room or provided a new knife and new uniform;
b. on January 6, 2016, Complainant’s coworkers made rude comments about her
weight, i.e., “What are you trying to be skinny,” commented about her food
choices, and issued her small knives too difficult to handle;
c. in January 2016, management failed to provide Complainant with safety
goggles;
d. on various occasions including on February 9, 2016, Complainant's colleagues
moved her cell phone and her lunch from the break room;
e. on March 21, 2016, Complainant was yelled at; and,
f. on an unspecified date, Complainant’s coworker splashed hand wash in her eye.

Following an investigation, Complainant requested a hearing before an EEOC Administrative
Judge but subsequently withdrew her request. Consequently, the Agency issued a final decision
in which it found that Complainant had not been subjected to discrimination as alleged.

2 Although Complainant did not specifically allege disability as a basis of discrimination, the
Commission determined that a fair reading of the complaint revealed that Complainant was
alleging a denial of reasonable accommodation for her disability.
2019002764

3
Complainant appealed and, in Jacquetta C. v. Dep’t of Agric., EEOC Appeal No. 0120172500
(Nov. 16, 2018), the Commission affirmed the final decision.

In her request for reconsideration, Complainant expresses her disagreement with the previous
decision and reiterates arguments previously raised on appeal. 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. The Commission finds that the arguments raised by Complainant in the instant
request for reconsideration were largely raised in her previous appeal, fully considered, and
rejected. The Commission finds that Complainant has not presented any evidence to support
reconsideration of the Commission’s finding that she failed to show that she was subjected to
discrimination or a hostile work environment.

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. 0120172500 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.
2019002764

4
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

June 21, 2019
Date