U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Karlene G.,1 Complainant, v. Wilbur L. Ross, Jr., Secretary, Department of Commerce (National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration), Agency. Request No. 2020000950 Appeal No. 2019004763 Agency No. 04-54-00116 DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION Complainant requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) reconsider its decision in EEOC Appeal No. 2019004763 (November 15, 2019). 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). On May 18, 2004, the parties executed an agreement to settle Agency Case Nos. 02-54-00280 and 04-54-00116. In relevant part, the settlement agreement required the Agency to reassign Complainant from her position as a Meteorologist, GS-1340-13 at the Radar Operations Center, Norman, Oklahoma to a position as Information Technology Officer, GS-2210-13, at the Green Bay, Wisconsin, Weather Forecast Office. Complainant, initially, sought a hardship transfer to the Green Bay facility to care for her ailing parents. Approximately 13 years later, the Agency issued a “Notice of Directed Reassignment.” The Agency directed Complainant to take an IT Specialist position in Silver Spring, Maryland, starting November 16, 2017. 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. 20200009502 Complainant accepted the reassignment and reported to the Silver Spring facility. Subsequently, she, among other things, alleged that the Agency, by reassigning her to Maryland, violated the 2004 settlement agreement. In our previous decision, we noted the settlement agreement did not include any language regarding the duration of the reassignment and thus, a reasonable amount of time would be imputed. We found the Agency complied with the agreement when Complainant was reassigned to Green Bay, Wisconsin and remained working there for more than a decade. The decision made clear, however, that in finding no violation of the settlement agreement, the Commission was not opining on Complainant’s allegation that she was discriminated against by the Agency with respect to the reassignment. In her request for reconsideration, Complainant argues that the previous decision was clearly erroneous and will have a substantial impact on the on the policies, practices, or operations of the Agency. She, however, for the most part, discussed why she believes the Agency’s actions were discriminatory and how they affected both her and her parents. Complainant also maintained that the previous decision did not consider “the circumstances for [her] request, [her] parents’ health issues and [the] need for [her] to provide ongoing care. . . .” She also maintained that the Agency “extorted” her into signing the settlement agreement by making her transfer contingent upon signing the agreement. In response, the Agency argues, in pertinent part, that Complainant’s request should be denied. We remind Complainant 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). A reconsideration request is an opportunity to demonstrate that the previous decision involved a clearly erroneous interpretation of material fact or law; or (2) will have a substantial impact on the policies, practices, or operations of the Agency. With respect to Complainant’s assertion that she was extorted into signing the agreement, we note that this matter was not raised on appeal. The Commission has consistently held that arguments raised for the first time on request for reconsideration cannot be considered at this stage of the proceedings. Complainant v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Request No. 0520130288 (Mar. 21, 2014); Choates v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, EEOC Request No. 05970012 (May 21, 1998). Therefore, the Commission will not consider this new argument here. Furthermore, because Complainant has not put forth any arguments which the Commission finds to be material to the outcome of the underlying decision, or that were not previously considered in rendering the underlying decision, we find no evidence that Complainant has met the criteria for reconsideration. 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. 20200009503 The decision in EEOC Appeal No. 2019004763 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 August 24, 2020 Date
