Beth G.,1 Complainant,v.Martin J. Gruenberg, Chairman, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Jan 31, 2018

0520180044 (E.E.O.C. Jan. 31, 2018)

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

Beth G.,1
Complainant,

v.

Martin J. Gruenberg,
Chairman,
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation,
Agency.

Request No. 0520180044

Appeal No. 0120152031

Hearing No. 570-2013-00735X

Agency No. FDICEO-12-054

DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

Complainant timely requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or
Commission) reconsider its decision in EEOC Appeal No. 0120152031 (September 14, 2017).
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 subjected her to unlawful
disability discrimination when: (1) on August 17, 2011, the Human Resources Specialist (HR
Specialist) notified Complainant that the Position Classification Audit Report (desk audit) of her
position resulted in her position being classified at the CG-7 level; (2) on August 19, 2011, the
Consumer Affairs Section Chief (Chief) directed Complainant to stop processing incoming
correspondence from the Office of Legislative Affairs (OLA); and (3) from late 2006 to April
2012, the Chief treated Complainant in an adverse manner, including when:

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.
0520180044

2

(a) The Chief denied Complainant's numerous requests for a desk audit from October
2006 to July 10, 2011.
(b) Around April 2007, Complainant was excluded from attending the Consumer Affairs
Conference at Virginia Square.
(c) In April 2009, Complainant was excluded from attending the Interagency Conference
in Kansas City, Missouri.
(d) In April 2010, Complainant stopped receiving assistance with the Specialized
Tracking and Reporting System (STARS) mailbox from the Kansas City Regional Office
assistants.
(e) On April 23, 2010, Complainant's primary OTS referral duties were removed.
(f) Between June and December 2010, the Chief instructed Complainant not to discuss
any consumer complaints with the Consumer Specialists.
(g) On September 2, 2010, the Chief instructed Complainant not to research unclaimed
property/funds or respond to consumers.
(h) On September 20, 2010, the Chief directed Complainant to turn over her duties
responding to mails in the STARS mailbox to the Agency's Credit Card Center for
handling.
(i) On January 10, 2010, the Chief prohibited Complainant from contacting the Kansas
City Regional office to respond to a consumer about a bank.
(j) On January 11, 2010, Complainant's work on cases and correspondence from the
Boston mailbox were reassigned to a grade 12 Specialist in the Kansas City Regional
Office.
(k) On July 12, 2011, Complainant's referral duties were removed.
(l) On March 30, 2012, the Chief revised Complainant's comments and suggestions for
her career development plan; and
(m) On or about April 24, 2012, the Classification Program Manager denied
Complainant's untimely filed desk audit appeal.

Following an investigation, Complainant requested a hearing before an Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission Administrative Judge (AJ). The AJ found that, after viewing the
evidence in a light most favorable to Complainant, a decision without a hearing was appropriate
as there were no genuine issues of material fact in dispute. Initially, the AJ dismissed claims (1),
(2), and (3)(a)-(k) for untimely EEO counselor contact. Next, the AJ determined that, with
respect to the remaining claims, Complainant failed to show that the Agency’s articulated
reasons for its actions were a pretext for unlawful disability or reprisal discrimination. Finally,
the AJ concluded that Complainant failed to show that she was subjected to unlawful
harassment. The Agency’s final order adopted the AJ’s finding of no discrimination. On appeal,
the Commission affirmed the Agency’s final order.

In her request for reconsideration, Complainant largely reiterates contentions made, and fully
considered on appeal. Accordingly, 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.
0520180044

3
0120152031 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

January 31, 2018
Date