[Redacted], Margeret M., 1 Complainant,v.Robert Wilkie, Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs (Veterans Health Administration), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Dec 17, 2020

Appeal No. 2019005747 (E.E.O.C. Dec. 17, 2020)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Margeret M.,1 Complainant, v. Robert Wilkie, Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs (Veterans Health Administration), Agency. Request No. 2021000118 Appeal No. 2019005747 Agency No. 200P-0653-2019100201 DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION Complainant requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) reconsider its decision in Margeret M. v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs (Veterans Health Administration), EEOC Appeal No. 2019005747 (September 24, 2020). 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 alleged that the Agency discriminated against her on the bases of race (Asian), sex (female), religion (Hindu), age, and associational reprisal for prior protected EEO activity of her husband (also an Agency employee) when: 1. From March 8 to September 28, 2018, Complainant was subjected to harassment; 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. 2021000118 2 2. On March 8, 2018, Complainant was detailed from her position as Chief of Staff (COS) to the position of Director, Office of Community Care (OCC); 3. On March 30, 2018, Complainant’s position as Director of the Office of Community Care was deleted from the organization chart, with no explanation; 4. On July 15, 2018, Complainant was denied permission to participate in the Electronic Health record Modernization meeting in Kansas City; 5. On August 1, 2018, Complainant was denied permission to participate in an all-expenses paid function hosted by the Disability Management Administration; and 6. On September 28, 2018, Complainant submitted her resignation after being notified that a pay panel had recommended reducing her annual salary by $40,000.00 and after management had pressured Complainant to retire before the completion of an investigation by the Office of Accountability and Whistleblowers Protection; Complainant later learned that she was not mentioned in the investigative report. Following an investigation, the Agency issued a final decision in accordance with Complainant’s request. The decision concluded that Complainant failed to prove that the Agency subjected her to discrimination as alleged. Complainant appealed the decision to the Commission. In our previous decision, we found Complainant did not show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that discrimination or reprisal occurred. In her request for reconsideration, Complainant reiterates numerous arguments she previously raised in her 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) (Aug. 5, 2015), at 9-18; 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. 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. 2019005747 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. 2021000118 3 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 17, 2020 Date