Cherilyn C.,1 Complainant,v.Kirstjen M. Nielsen, Secretary, Department of Homeland Security (Transportation Security Administration), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Aug 3, 2018

0520180250 (E.E.O.C. Aug. 3, 2018)

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

Cherilyn C.,1
Complainant,

v.

Kirstjen M. Nielsen,
Secretary,
Department of Homeland Security
(Transportation Security Administration),
Agency.

Request No. 0520180250

Appeal No. 0120180157

Agency No. HS-TSA-01818-2017

DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

Complainant timely requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or
Commission) reconsider its decision in EEOC Appeal No. 0120180157 (February 14, 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).

In the underlying complaint, Complainant claims that the Agency discriminated against her and
subjected her to a hostile work environment on the bases of sex (female) and reprisal (prior EEO
activity), when: (1) during June 2011, management issued Complainant a low performance
evaluation score; (2) during or about October 2011, management stopped responding to
Complainant’s Performance and Results Information Systems (PARIS) emails; (3) in October
2011, management excluded Complainant from an airport contractor’s investigation meeting; (4)
in February 2012, a manager lunged across a table during Complainant’s annual evaluation; (5) in

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.
0520180250

2
September 2012, management issued Complainant a Letter of Counseling; (6) in or around
September 2012, management issued Complainant a Letter of Reprimand (LOR); (7) in or about
March 2014, management stopped responding to Complainant’s emails; (8) in or about August
2014, management issued Complainant a Letter of Reprimand; (9) in or about November 2014,
management lowered Complainant’s performance rating; (10) on a date in October 2015,
management almost rated Complainant’s performance as “unacceptable;” (11) in or about October
2016, management issued Complainant a performance evaluation score of 4.24; and (12) on a date
in January 2017, management altered her investigation to be incorrect, named a co-worker as Lead
on the investigation, gave Complainant’s hours to the new Lead, and never corrected these actions.

Our previous decision affirmed the Agency’s dismissal of the formal complaint for untimely EEO
Counselor contact. We agreed with the Agency in finding that the alleged events occurred between
June 2011 and January 2017, thereby rendering Complainant’s June 20, 2017 initial EEO
counselor contact approximately three months past the forty-five-day time limit.

Complainant does not address the timeliness issue in her reconsideration request. 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.

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. 0120180157 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.

0520180250

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

August 3, 2018
Date