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

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Dec 22, 2021

Appeal No. 2020001388 (E.E.O.C. Dec. 22, 2021)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Analee D.,1 Complainant, v. Denis R. McDonough, Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs, Agency. Request No. 2021004840 Appeal No. 2020001388 Agency Nos. 200I-0557-2016-10626, 200I-0557-2017100528, 200I-00557-2017104260, 200I- 0557-2018103536 Hearing Nos. 410-2017-00413X, 410-2017-00516X, 410-2018-00275X, 410-2019-00067X DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION Complainant timely requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) reconsider its decision in Analee D v. Department of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Appeal No. 2020001388 (August 3, 2021). 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). During the relevant time, Complainant worked for the Agency as a Senior Social Worker in Dublin, Georgia. Complainant filed four formal complaints in which, collectively, she claimed discrimination based on race, age and disability, as well as unlawful retaliation for prior protected activity. 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. 3 2021004840 Complainant claimed that: in March 2016, she was not selected for a Social Worker Program Coordinator-Substance Abuse Treatment position; she was subjected to numerous incidents of harassment; she was denied the opportunity for promotion when not allowed to act as the Chief of Social Work; she was not selected for a Primary Care Mental Health Integration position; she was not selected for an Assistant Chief of Mental Health position; she was not given the opportunity to apply for an HUD/VASH position; she was informed that a selection was made for an acting Chief of Social Work position because the selectee was the only one not involved in a fact-fining or investigation; she was denied another opportunity to act of Chief of Social Work; she was not selected for a Supervisory Social Worker position; and she was not selected for a Supervisory Social Worker Outpatient Mental Health position. After an investigation, Complainant requested a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). The complaints were consolidated, and the assigned AJ determined sua sponte that the consolidated complaints did not warrant a hearing and, over Complainant’s objections, issued a summary judgment decision in favor of the Agency. The Agency thereafter issued a final order implementing the AJ’s decision without a hearing, finding no discrimination or retaliation was established. Complainant appealed. In EEOC Appeal No. 2020001388, we affirmed the Agency’s final decision finding no discrimination. In the instant request for reconsideration, Complainant submits a brief expressing disagreement with the appellate decision. Along with raising arguments addressing the substance of the AJ’s decision that were addressed or which could have been addressed below, Complainant raises duplicative arguments addressing the AJ’s manner in conducting the hearing phase of this case. We note that the prior decision expressly detailed Complainant’s appellate arguments in this matter, and expressly found no abuse of discretion by the AJ, and was unable to find any “evidence of bias, or other reversible error, resulting from the manner in which the AJ managed this case.” We emphasize 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), 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. 2020001388 remains the Commission's decision. There is no further right of administrative appeal on the decision of the Commission on this request. 4 2021004840 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 December 22, 2021 Date