Starr D.,1 Complainant,v.R. Alexander Acosta, Secretary, Department of Labor (Employment and Training Administration), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Jun 14, 2019

0120180920 (E.E.O.C. Jun. 14, 2019)

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

Starr D.,1
Complainant,

v.

R. Alexander Acosta,
Secretary,
Department of Labor
(Employment and Training Administration),
Agency.

Appeal No. 0120180920

Agency No. CRC1711046

DECISION

On December 11, 2017, Complainant filed an appeal with the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (EEOC or Commission), pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.403(a), from the Agency’s
December 11, 2017 final decision concerning an equal employment opportunity (EEO)
complaint alleging employment discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964 (Title VII), as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.

BACKGROUND

During the relevant time, Complainant worked at the Agency’s Office of Workforce Investment,
Division of Indian and Native American Programs (“DINAP”), within the Employment and
Training Administration in Washington, D.C.

On February 3, 2017, Complainant filed a formal EEO complaint. Complainant claimed that the
Agency subjected her to a hostile work environment and discriminated against her based on race
(African American), color (black), and in reprisal for prior protected EEO activity when:

1. in August 2014, Complainant’s first line supervisor (hereinafter referred to as
“S1”) pointed at her and used her as an example of how the number of Native

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.
0120180920

2
Americans is not accurately captured in the census because people who claim that
they are part Native American dilute the results;

2. in Fall 2014, Complainant asked S1 what she had to do to receive a rating of
Exemplary on her Performance Appraisal, and S1 responded by telling
Complainant that she would have to figure it out for herself;

3. in January 2015, Complainant was removed as the “Lead for the new Director’s
Grant Training”;

4. in January 2015, Complainant was removed from working with the Advisory
Council;

5. on January 8, 2015, S1 denied her request to meet with her about Complainant’s
work assignments, even though S1 meets with other employees to discuss work
matters;

6. in early February 2015, Complainant learned that S1 asked her colleagues how
she came to work in the office, and told them that she disliked the fact that
Complainant was a “high GS-13”;

7. on March 4, 2015, “[key] FPO work” was redistributed to Complainant, which
was complicated and had major issues;

8. on April 28, 2015, S1 sent Complainant and the rest of the staff an email stating
that while she could attend a colleague’s memorial service, she could not
represent the office while doing so;

9. in October 2015, the Union Steward overheard S1 tell another manager that she
was “going to get” Complainant;

10. in March 2016, S1 failed to attend her graduation from the Emerging Leaders
program, even though all other managers who had employees who graduated from
the program attended the graduation;

11. in May 2016, S1 denied her travel request to perform an onsite visit to monitor
one of her grant projects;

12. on August 21-25, 2016, S1 denied her the ability to attend and present at a
National Native American Employment and Training Conference’

13. in September 2016, S1 excluded her from a meeting/teleconference with one of
her grantees;

0120180920

3
14. on October 26, 2016, S1 failed to take action after one of her Native American
coworkers responded to Complainant’s suggestion that the Advisory Council use
a facilitator by stating in a “nasty tone” that she needed to get to know the Native
American community before suggesting that a facilitator be used;

15. from October 28 – November 2016, S1: a) denied her requests for meetings; b)
subjected her work to undue scrutiny; and, c) provided written feedback that
included false statements;

16. on December 6, 2016, Complainant received a rating of Highly Effective rather
than Exemplary, which failed to take into account her accomplishments;

17. on December 7, 2016, S1 altered Complainant’s Performance Standards so that
she had Regional Office responsibilities, rather than National Office
responsibilities;

18. on December 7, 2016, S1 expressed resentment when Complainant requested
information and told her that she did no need to have the information; and,

19. on January 17, 2017, a position in Complainant’s office was filled without the
posting of a vacancy announcement.

On February 3, 2017, the Agency accepted the formal complaint and conducted an investigation.
The investigative record reflects the following pertinent matters relating to the subject claims.

Complainant’s first line supervisor is the Division Chief (Native Indian American, does not
identify with a color), Office of Workforce Investment, Division of Indian and Native American
Programs (hereinafter referred to as “S1”). S1 was hired in August 2014. Complainant’s second
line supervisor is the Administrator (Caucasian, white) (hereinafter referred to as “S2”).

During an August 2014 staff meeting, Complainant stated that S1 discussed how the U.S. Census
inaccurately counted individuals in the U.S., specifically through undercounting and population
dilution. Complainant asserted that S1 humiliated her and the Compliance Liaison (African
American, black) (hereinafter referred to as “CW1”) by using them as examples (claim 1). CW1
stated that S1 shared her opinions regarding the U.S. Census, but that she did not use
Complainant or himself as examples. S1 acknowledged having conversations regarding the U.S.
Census, and how the data affects the Agency’s work, but denied ever trying to publicly humiliate
Complainant or CW1.

In Fall 2014, Complainant asked S1 what she had to do in order to receive a rating of Exemplary
on her performance appraisal. Complainant asserted that S1 responded by saying that
Complainant would have to figure it out herself (claim 2). S1 stated that at the time of
Complainant’s request, her mid-year performance review had already occurred. Therefore, S1
asked the Human Resources department for guidance. Based on HR’s suggestion, S1 held a
0120180920

4
second meeting and provided her with verbal examples that could help Complainant attain an
Exemplary rating.

In January 2015, Complainant was removed as the Lead for the New Director’s Grant Training
(claim 3). Complainant asserted that she was supposed to remain in the role upon S1’s arrival.
However, after only two months, Complainant was removed. Complainant named CW1 as a
witness. CW1 stated that Complainant was never assigned as the lead. S1 stated that at the time,
Complainant was on detail with DINAP. Complainant’s detail did not include being the Lead for
the New Director’s Grant Training. S1 stated that the New Director’s Training was awarded to
the DINAP training and technical assistance contractor, and that CW1 had primary responsibility
under this contract. S1 further explained the details of this arrangement during the investigation.
Relevant to the claim, S1 stated that after assessing priorities of DINAP, she reassigned all
Federal Project Officers, including Complainant, to different tasks.

Also in January 2015, Complainant was allegedly removed from working with the Advisory
Council (claim 4). Complainant asserted that while her work was limited, other Native American
employees could keep working with the Council. S1 stated that Council is a non-discretionary
committee that is comprised of representatives of Indian tribes, tribal organizations, Alaska
Native entities, Indian-controlled organizations serving Indians, or Native Hawaiian
organizations. S1 stated that Complainant was never part of, or worked with the Council as part
of her job. S1 stated that a Designated Federal Officer, appointed by the Department, works
closely with the Council, and that Complainant was never appointed in this role. She noted that,
at her discretion, DINAP staff might serve as subject matter experts, or provide administrative
support. CW1 stated that the previous division chief had assigned Complainant as his back up as
the assigned Contract Office Representative, but that she was never assigned to work with or on
the Council.

On January 8, 2015, S1 denied Complainant’s request to meet regarding Complainant’s
assignments (claim 5). Complainant asserted that while S1 denied her a meeting, S1 routinely
met with other employees. CW1 asserted that S1 had an “open-door” policy and held bi-weekly
meetings with all staff. S1 denied Complainant’s allegation, and further asserted that there was
no record of Complainant requesting a meeting to which S1 denied.

In early February 2015, Complainant asserted that S1 attempted to engage in a “gossipy
conversation” with her regarding how she came to work for DINAP. Complainant also learned
that S1 asked her colleagues how she came to work in the office and told them that she disliked
the fact that Complainant was a “high GS-13” (claim 6). Complainant asserted that S1 had one-
on-one conversations with CW1 and a former Federal Project Officer (American Indian, no color
identified, unknown EEO activity) (hereinafter referred to as “CW2”). However, CW1 and CW2
both stated that this conversation never occurred. S1 also denied ever saying such statements. S1
further noted that she would only discuss work-related issues with S2, and only behind closed
doors. S1 denied ever making negative comments or complaints about Complainant’s grade level
or attempting to engage in any malicious gossip.

0120180920

5
On March 4, 2015, S1 redistributed “[key] Federal Project Officer work” to Complainant that
was complicated and had major issues (claim 7). The EEO Investigator noted that while
Complainant provided much information detailing wide ranging disagreements between S1 and
herself, there was no information that supported Complainant’s contention that she received a
disproportionate number of complicated and difficult grants. S1 stated that after an assessment of
the division workload, S1 determined that there was inequitable distribution of work. S1 noted
that while some Federal Project Officers were responsible for thirty-four or more grants,
Complainant at the time only had five grants. S1 discussed her decision to reassign grants with
all employees. S1 tried to ensure that any work reassigned was comparable to that employee’s
grade level.

On April 28, 2015, Complainant asserted that S1 sent an embarrassing, disrespectful, and
humiliating email to the staff when she stated that while Complainant could attend a colleague’s
memorial service, Complainant could not represent the office (claim 8). The record reflects that
S1’s email response stated the following:

Thank you for your compassion and empathy to your colleague, but the
expressions of sympathy should come from you - there is no need to represent
DINAP. Thanks - [S1]

S1 denied being disrespectful to Complainant, and just wanted to clarify that
Complainant did not need to formally represent DINAP at the services.

In October 2015, the Union Steward overheard S1 tell another manager that S1 was “going to
get” Complainant (claim 9). The Union Steward stated that on an unspecified date she overheard
S1 tell an unidentified individual that she was going to “get” Complainant. The Union Steward
did not provide any further information. S1 denied ever stating that she was going to “get”
Complainant.

In March 2016, S1 failed to attend Complainant’s graduation from the Emerging Leaders
program (claim 10). Complainant noted that other managers, including S2, attended the
ceremony on behalf of subordinates who were in the program. S1 stated that she attempted to
attend the event, but was deeply involved in a priority work item and could not. S1 noted that she
rushed over after, but only caught the reception, and that most attendees had already left. S1
found Complainant at the office, apologized for missing the event, presented her a staff signed
card, and congratulated her.

In May 2016, S1 denied Complainant’s travel request to perform an onsite visit to monitor one of
her grant projects (claim 11). Complainant noted that S1 approved two other individuals to go to
the same site instead of her. S1 stated that the decision was made to send a more experienced
team to conduct the onsite review. Specifically, S2 and S1 recommended that the Agency send a
Team Lead, and the Financial Management Expert. S1 stated that Complainant was kept “in the
loop.”

0120180920

6
From August 21 to 25, 2016, S1 denied Complainant the ability to attend and present at a
National Native American Employment and Training Conference (claim 12). S1 stated that the
Agency’s budget is very restricted, and several factors are considered when deciding which
employees are allowed to attend. S1 noted that the previous year, Complainant attended because
she was fairly new, and S1 believed the experience would be positive for Complainant.
However, DINAP decided that it was best to send a different staff member as Complainant
already had an opportunity in the past, and because of the restricted budget.

In September 2016, S1 excluded Complainant from a meeting with one of her grantees (claims
13). CW1 noted that he was required to attend the meeting in question due to the grantee’s
concerns related to contract law, of which he was the subject matter expert. Complainant asserted
that S1 was sabotaging her career growth. S1 denied ever excluding Complainant from that
meeting, or any other meeting.

On October 26, 2016, Complainant sent S1 an email suggesting that the office use a facilitator
for the Advisory Council. The Designated Federal Official (Native American) (hereinafter
referred to as “CW3”) responded back to the email with what Complainant perceived to be a
“nasty tone”. Complainant felt that S1 should have addressed the colleague’s tone as she was
copied on the email exchange (claim 14). The record contains a copy of the email transcript. S1
did not feel it was necessary to intervene because she did not find CW3’s tone to be “nasty”.

From October 28 to November 2016, S1 denied Complainant’s request for meetings, subjected
her work to undue scrutiny, and provided written feedback that included false statements (claim
15). Complainant requested meetings to discuss site findings, but was routinely denied. She
believed her work was being overly scrutinized, but did not go into details. Additionally,
Complainant asserted that S1’s feedback continued false statements. For example, S1 stated that
Complainant’s information could not be used, even though Complainant believed her data was
used in the final product. Complainant believed that she was being retaliated against for having
collaborated with the Office of Grants Management Policy Office to have an Incident Report
filed against a DINAP grantee. S1 denied all allegations in a detailed response.

On December 6, 2016, Complainant received a rating of Highly Effective rather than Exemplary,
which failed to take into account her accomplishments (claim 16). Complainant asserted that S1
initially failed to consider her work in the Emerging Leaders Program. Adding her work in the
Emerging Leaders Program did not increase her rating. Complainant’s evaluation and a detailed
explanation for the categories are provided in the record. S1 stated that she considered
Complainant’s participation in the Emerging Leaders Program, but that the program alone would
not have been enough to award an Exemplary rating. S1 noted that no one received an
Exemplary rating in Fiscal Year 2016. S2 was the second line reviewer and agreed with S1’s
rating. S2 stated that Complainant’s comments and feedback were taken into account in the final
rating.

On December 7, 2016, S1 altered Complainant’s Performance Standards so that she had
Regional Office responsibilities, rather than National Office responsibilities (claim 17).
0120180920

7
Complainant stated that the alteration limited her career development and opportunities for
higher level work. S1 stated that a review was conducted of all Performance Standards and that
while none of the standards changed, one minor change was made to place an increased
emphasis on program monitoring.

On December 7, 2016, during a staff meeting, Complainant requested a copy pf the updated
DINAP fact sheet. S1 purportedly expressed resentment at the request (claim 18). S1 stated that
the fact sheet in question was sent out to all DINAP staff, including Complainant, after it went
through the required levels of review. During the same meeting, S1 also announced that a new
employee would be starting shortly. Complainant asserted that the position was filled without the
posting of a vacancy announcement. Complainant asserted further that current employees were
therefore not given an opportunity to apply for the vacancy (claim 19). S1 explained that the
individual was hired as a GS-11, through Schedule A, Excepted Service and replaced a vacancy
created by the retirement of a GS-13 individual.

After an investigation, the Agency provided Complainant with a copy of the report of
investigation and notice of her right to request a hearing before an Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission Administrative Judge (AJ). In accordance with Complainant’s request,
the Agency issued a final decision pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.110(b), finding no
discrimination.

The instant appeal followed. Complainant asserts that full consideration was not given regarding
the evidence and documentation gathered in the formal complaint. Complainant notes that the
investigator did not call all of the witnesses that she provided. Complainant asserts that the
Agency merely went through the appearance of an investigation without actually investigating
her claims. Complainant also notes that instead of being interviewed during the investigation, she
was merely asked to complete an affidavit.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

A claim of disparate treatment is examined under the three-part analysis first enunciated in
McDonnell Douglas Corporation v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). For complainant to prevail, he
must first establish a prima facie case of discrimination by presenting facts that, if unexplained,
reasonably give rise to an inference of discrimination, i.e., that a prohibited consideration was a
factor in the adverse employment action. See McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 802; Furnco
Construction Corp. v. Waters, 438 U.S. 567 (1978). The burden then shifts to the agency to
articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its actions. See Texas Department of
Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 253 (1981). Once the agency has met its burden,
the complainant bears the ultimate responsibility to persuade the fact finder by a preponderance
of the evidence that the agency acted on the basis of a prohibited reason. See St. Mary’s Honor
Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (1993).

This established order of analysis in discrimination cases, in which the first step normally
consists of determining the existence of a prima facie case, need not be followed in all cases.
0120180920

8
Where the agency has articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the personnel action
at issue, the factual inquiry can proceed directly to the third step of the McDonnell Douglas
analysis, the ultimate issue of whether complainant has shown by a preponderance of the
evidence that the agency’s actions were motivated by discrimination. See U.S. Postal Service
Board of Governors v. Aikens, 460 U.S. 711, 713-714 (1983); Hernandez v. Department of
Transportation, EEOC Request No. 05900159 (June 28, 1990); Peterson v. Department of Health
and Human Services, EEOC Request No. 05900467 (June 8, 1990); Washington v. Department
of the Navy, EEOC Petition No. 03900056 (May 31, 1990).

Even if we assume arguendo that Complainant established a prima facie case of discrimination,
the Agency has articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions. Regarding
Complainant’s performance evaluations (claims 2, and 16), the record demonstrates that S1 held
performance reviews with Complainant, and provided examples of how Complainant might
reach the highest rating of Exemplary. The record demonstrated that obtaining a rating of
Exemplary is quite difficult, and that during the relevant time, no one under S1’s supervision
received an Exemplary rating. Contrary to Complainant’s assertions, there is no evidence that S1
failed to take into account her accomplishments, or intentionally and discriminatorily rated her
less than she deserved based on her protected classes or in retaliation. Complainant also argued
that it was harder for her to succeed when S1 changed her performance standards (claim 17). S1
testified that Complainant’s performance standards were not changed. Rather, a review was
conducted of all Performance Standards and one minor change was made to place an increased
emphasis on program monitoring. This change would have had no effect on Complainant’s work
or potential growth.

Regarding Complainant’s assignments, Complainant asserted that she was discriminatorily
removed as the Lead for the new Director’s Grant Training (claim 3), and from working with the
Advisory Council (claim 4). In both instances, there was nothing in her job description that
stated that work in either role was required or guaranteed. Complainant also asserted that
requests for meetings regarding work assignments were denied (claim 5), that she was given a
difficult workload (claim 7), and that she was excluded from meetings (claim 13). However, as
with the other claims, Complainant failed to provide evidence to support her contentions.
Complainant asserted meetings were denied, and that she was excluded from a meeting with one
of her grantees, but there is no proof of this. Complainant also argued that her workload became
increasingly difficult follow the redistribution of Federal Project Officer work. However, the
record demonstrated that work was redistributed throughout the office, and she was not the only
employee affected. S1 also noted that she careful to consider an employee’s experience and
grade service level in redistributing work.

Regarding travel requests (claims 11 and 12), S1 provided explanations for why Complainant’s
May 2016 onsite travel request was denied. Specifically, based on the site issues, it was decided
that more senior and experienced employees be sent to perform the onsite visit. Regarding S1’s
denial of Complainant’s conference attendance request, the record demonstrated that the Agency
had restrictive budget, and that Complainant had already attended the year prior. It was therefore
determined that another employee should be given the chance to attend.
0120180920

9

Regarding the filled position in claim 19, the record contains a detailed explanation of how the
position came to be filled. Specifically, through a Schedule A, Excepted Service method.
Additionally, the new employee was coming in under a lower grade service than Complainant,
and filling in a vacant spot due to a retiring individual. We do not find the Agency’s reasons to
be pretext for discrimination.

In sum, there is no evidence which suggests the Agency’s actions were based on discriminatory
animus. Complainant has not provided any evidence that suggests that the Agency's reasons were
pretext for discrimination or that discriminatory animus was involved.

Harassment

To establish a claim of discriminatory hostile environment harassment, Complainant must show
that: (1) she belongs to a statutorily protected class; (2) she was subjected to harassment in the
form of unwelcome verbal or physical conduct involving the protected class; (3) the harassment
complained of was based on his statutorily protected class; (4) the harassment affected a term or
condition of employment and/or had the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with the
work environment and/or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment; and
(5) there is a basis for imputing liability to the Agency. Henson v. City of Dundee, 682 F.2d 897
(11th Cir. 1982).

In short, to prove her harassment claim, Complainant must establish that she was subjected to
conduct that was either so severe or so pervasive that a “reasonable person” in Complainant’s
position would have found the conduct to be hostile or abusive. Complainant must also prove
that the conduct was taken because of a protected basis – in this case, because of her disability or
prior EEO activity. Only if Complainant establishes both of those elements, hostility and
motive, will the question of Agency liability present itself.

Complainant has cited various incidents that she found to be adverse or disruptive to her (claims
1, 6, 8 – 10, 14, and 15). For example, Complainant asserted that S1 repeatedly humiliated,
embarrassed her in public (claims 1, 8). Complainant felt she was targeted during an August
2014 staff meeting (claim 1). However, the record does not support Complainant’s contention.
Further, Complainant’s own witness, CW1 attested that while S1 discussed census-related
matters, neither he nor Complainant were ever the focus of the discussion, or singled out in
anyway. Complainant also asserted that S1 replied in a harassing and humiliating fashion when
she informed Complainant that she could not represent the office while in attendance of a
colleague’s memorial service (claim 8). In this incident, the email exchange is also in the record,
and it is clear from the email that while appreciative of Complainant’s desire to attend, S1 did
not feel it necessary that Complainant go on behalf of the Agency. There is nothing objectively
harassing regarding the email exchange.

Complainant also asserted that S1 failed to step in when others engaged in hostile behavior
towards her. For example, in claim 14, Complainant found CW3’s response to her in an email to
0120180920

10
be “nasty,” and felt that S1 should have said something. This email exchange is documented in
the record, and reads as a typical email exchange between colleagues. While Complainant may
have subjectively felt offended by the email, or perceived there to be a “nasty” tone, the email
exchange is not objectively hostile. Complainant also noted that S1 expressed resentment when
she requested a copy of the updated DINAP fact sheet. The record demonstrated that this request
was made at a staff meeting, and there is no indication that S1’s response was considered hostile.
Moreover, after the proper review channels, Complainant, like everyone else, had access to the
updated fact sheet. The Commission notes that Title VII is not a civility code. Rather, it forbids
“only behavior so objectively offensive as to alter the conditions of the victim’s employment.”
Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Serv., Inc., 523 U.S. 75, 81 (1998).

Complainant also asserted that S1 became even more hostile from October 28 to November 2016
as the result of Complainant’s participation in reporting a DINAP grantee (claim 15).
Complainant detailed her belief, and noted denied meetings, overly scrutinized work, and
feedback with falsified statements. S1 denied all allegations in a detailed response. Based on the
record, there is no indication that S1 acted any differently based on Complainant’s participation
in reporting the DINAP grantee.

Complainant also provided several other claims demonstrating a hostile work environment, such
as S1 engaging in malicious gossip (claims 6, 9), and failing to attend her Emerging Leaders
Graduation (claim 10). Complainant asserted that S1 engaged in malicious gossip with both
CW1 and CW2 (claim 6), but both colleagues denied the claim. Both also stated that S1 had
never said anything negative about Complainant to them. Regarding claim 9, while the Union
Steward stated that on an unspecified date she overheard S1 tell an unidentified individual that
she was out to “get” Complainant. S1 denied the interaction. The evidence on this interaction, as
is with the other claims, is at best, in equipoise. Regarding claim 10, the record does not
demonstrate that S1’s lack of attendance was meant to be regarded as a slight against
Complainant.

In this matter, beyond the Report of Investigation, Complainant’s numerous and detailed
arguments, Complainant did not present sufficient evidence to support her claims. Complainant
did raise her concerns that not of all her witnesses were interviewed, but we do not find the EEO
Investigator’s report to be lacking. Here, Complainant decided not to request a hearing before an
EEOC AJ, and as a result we do not have the benefit of an AJ's credibility determinations of
these conflicting witnesses. Complainant had to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that
the alleged discriminatory acts occurred. Here, the evidence is, at best, in equipoise.
Accordingly, Complainant has failed to meet her burden of persuasion. Complainant v. Dep't of
Health and Human Servs., EEOC Appeal No. 0120122134 (Sep. 24, 2014) citing Lore v. Dep't
of Homeland Sec., EEOC Appeal No. 0120113283 (Sep. 13, 2013) and Brand v. Dep't of
Agric., EEOC Appeal No. 0120102187 (Aug. 23, 2012).

The record simply does not show that Complainant has produced sufficient evidence to establish
that her protected classes or prior EEO activity was a factor in any of these actions. There is
0120180920

11
insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the responsible Agency officials acted with
discriminatory or retaliatory animus towards Complainant.

CONCLUSION

Based on a thorough review of the record and the contentions on appeal, we AFFIRM the
Agency's final decision finding no discrimination.

STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL

RECONSIDERATION (M0617)
The Commission may, in its discretion, reconsider the decision in this case if the Complainant or
the Agency submits a written request containing arguments or evidence which tend to establish
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.
Requests to reconsider, with supporting statement or brief, must be filed with the Office of
Federal Operations (OFO) within thirty (30) calendar days of receipt of this decision. A party
shall have twenty (20) calendar days of receipt of another party’s timely request for
reconsideration in which to submit a brief or statement in opposition. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.405;
Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive for 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 (EEO MD-110),
at Chap. 9 § VII.B (Aug. 5, 2015). All requests and arguments must be submitted to the
Director, Office of Federal Operations, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
Complainant’s request may be submitted via regular mail to P.O. Box 77960, Washington, DC
20013, or by certified mail to 131 M Street, NE, Washington, DC 20507. In the absence of a
legible postmark, the request to reconsider shall be deemed timely filed if it is received by mail
within five days of the expiration of the applicable filing period. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.604. The
agency’s request must be submitted in digital format via the EEOC’s Federal Sector EEO Portal
(FedSEP). See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.403(g). The request or opposition must also include proof of
service on the other party.
0120180920

12
Failure to file within the time period will result in dismissal of your request for reconsideration
as untimely, unless extenuating circumstances prevented the timely filing of the request. Any
supporting documentation must be submitted with your request for reconsideration. The
Commission will consider requests for reconsideration filed after the deadline only in very
limited circumstances. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.604(c).
COMPLAINANT’S RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (S0610)
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. If you
file a request to reconsider and also file a civil action, filing a civil action will terminate the
administrative processing of your complaint.
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.
Carlton M. Hadden, Director
Office of Federal Operations

June 14, 2019
Date