[Redacted], Hulda W., 1 Complainant,v.Denis R. McDonough, Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Feb 27, 2023

Appeal No. 2021001956 (E.E.O.C. Feb. 27, 2023)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Hulda W.,1 Complainant, v. Denis R. McDonough, Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs, Agency. Request No. 2022004956 Appeal No. 2021001956 Agency No. 200H-0620-2020105129 DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION Complainant timely requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) reconsider its decision in EEOC Appeal No. 2021001956 (August 4, 2022). 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). At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a Mail Room Clerk, GS-5, at the Agency’s Medical Center in Montrose, New York. On October 13, 2020, Complainant filed a formal complaint alleging that the Agency subjected her to discrimination on the bases of her race (African American), sex (female), and reprisal for prior protected EEO activity under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 when, from June to July 2020, Complainant was subjected to harassment. In support of this claim, Complainant alleges the following acts of harassment occurred: on an unspecified date in June 2020, Complainant declined to write a statement regarding an unspecified incident; around the same 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. 2022004956 2 time, Complainant was made to write a report of contact regarding a patient’s complaint against her; and between July 7-9, 2020, the Chief of Police held up a photo of Complainant and threatened to lock her up. The Agency dismissed two of the three alleged incidents of harassment on the grounds that Complainant raised them before the EEO Counselor but did not raise them in her formal complaint and hence they were deemed to have been abandoned. With regard to the third and final incident, the Agency found that Complainant failed to state a claim. Complainant appealed. In EEOC Appeal No. 2021001956, the Commission affirmed the Agency’s final decision dismissing the complaint. In our prior decision, considering all three incidents together and assuming they can be proven to be true, we concluded that Complainant cannot establish that these isolated actions were sufficiently severe and/or pervasive to alter the conditions of her employment in violation of Title VII. Nor did we find that the alleged actions to be reasonably likely to deter Complainant or others from engaging in protected activity. Therefore, we affirmed the Agency’s final decision dismissing the matter pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.107(a)(1). In the instant request for reconsideration, nothing that Complainant has submitted supports a determination that the prior decision affirming the Agency final order was in error. 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), 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. 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. 2021001956 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. 2022004956 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 February 27, 2023 Date