[Redacted], Gena C., 1 Complainant,v.Kilolo Kijakazi, Acting Commissioner, Social Security Administration, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Jan 31, 2023

Appeal Nos. 2021002642, 2022000359 (E.E.O.C. Jan. 31, 2023)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Gena C.,1 Complainant, v. Kilolo Kijakazi, Acting Commissioner, Social Security Administration, Agency. Request No. 2022004269 Appeal Nos. 2021002642, 2022000359 Hearing Nos. 560-2018-00203X, 560-2020-00103X Agency Nos. KC-17-0647, KC-19-0396 DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION Complainant timely requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) reconsider its decision in Gena C. v. Soc. Sec. Admin., EEOC Appeal Nos. 2021002642, 2022000359 (July 7, 2022). 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). Complainant, a GS-8 Customer Service Representative (CSR) at the Agency's Field Office in Joplin, Missouri, filed two formal EEO complaints. In the first complaint (Agency Number KC- 17-0647 (Case-0647)), Complainant alleged that the Agency discriminated against her on the bases of national origin (Hispanic), religion (Christian), disability (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, Fibromyalgia, Degenerative Disc Disease, Sleep Disorder, Irritable Bowel Syndrome, and Osteoarthritis) and in reprisal for prior protected EEO activity 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. 2022004269 2 1. Complainant was placed on a performance assistance (PA) plan and work review; 2. Since May 5, 2017, Complainant was subjected to a hostile work environment regarding the terms and conditions of her employment; 3. Complainant was denied Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) leave for June 2, 2017 to June 7, 2017; 4. Since January 18, 2017, Complainant's request for reasonable accommodation has been denied; and 5. On August 28, 2017, Complainant was denied a monetary award. In the second EEO complaint (KC-19-0396 (Case-0396)), Complainant alleged that the Agency discriminated against her on the basis of disability (Carpel Tunnel Syndrome and Emotional Distress) and in reprisal for prior protected EEO activity when: 6. Since 2018, Complainant was denied reasonable accommodations by failing to increase her telework days, provide Dragon dictation software, or provide additional phone duty; and 7. In November 2018, management left documentation regarding Complainant's medical information and accommodation request on an office photocopy machine for several days. Following investigations, Complainant requested hearings before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). The AJ assigned to Case-0647 issued a summary judgment decision finding that Complainant was not subjected to discrimination or reprisal as alleged. The AJ assigned to Case-0396 held a hearing and then issued a decision finding that Complainant was not subjected to discrimination or reprisal as alleged. The Agency issued final orders fully adopting the AJs’ decisions. The Commission consolidated Complainant’s appeals for one decision and affirmed both final orders. In her request for reconsideration, Complainant expresses her disagreement with the previous decision and largely reiterates arguments previously made on appeal. The Commission emphasizes that a request for reconsideration is not a second appeal. 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. Complainant has not presented any persuasive evidence to support reconsideration of the Commission's decision. 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 Nos. 2021002642, 2022000359 remains the Commission's final decision. There is no further right of administrative appeal on the decision of the Commission on this request. 2022004269 3 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, 2023 Date