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

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Mar 6, 2023

Appeal No. 2021001791 (E.E.O.C. Mar. 6, 2023)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Kecia C.,1 Complainant, v. Denis R. McDonough, Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs, Agency. Request No. 2023000091 Appeal No. 2021001791 Hearing No. 480-2019-00208X Agency No. 200P-0691-2018101735 DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION Complainant requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) reconsider its decision in Kecia C. v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Appeal No. 2021001791 (Aug. 31, 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). The record indicates that Complainant filed her complaint on June 26, 2019, alleging discrimination based on race, color, and in reprisal for prior protected EEO activity when: 1. On or after March 31, 2017, Complainant’s timecard erroneously reflected that Complainant was at work from March 19, 2017, to March 31, 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. 2023000091 2 2. In or around July 2017, Complainant’s request for leave donation was disapproved. 3. Beginning October 2017, Complainant has not been provided with a copy of her Fiscal Year (FY) 2017 performance appraisal. 4. On November 15, 2017, Complainant was issued a notice of proposed removal based on a false accusation of pushing a coworker. 5. In or around December 2017, Complainant was issued an order not to interact with a coworker. 6. In November, the wife of Complainant’s supervisor greeted Complainant, identified herself as the supervisor’s wife, and stated that she had “heard a lot” about Complainant. 7. On or around December 13, 2017, management attempted to mark Complainant as Absent Without Leave (AWOL). 8. On December 22, 2017, and on other dates, Complainant was left alone to work in the clinic. 9. On January 4, 2018, Complainant’s supervisor denied Complainant’s request to work overtime and discussed her attendance issues in the presence of her co-workers. 10. On January 4 and 5, 2018, Complainant was charged AWOL. 11. On January 8, 2018, Complainant was informed that she would not be reassigned in accordance with her request unless she agreed to a demotion in pay grade. 12. On January 12, 2018, Complainant’s supervisor screamed and waved his hands when he accused her of being gone for an hour and taking an extended break. 13. On January 12, 2018, Complainant was instructed to take her lunch break at a specific time. 14. On January 16, 2018, Complainant’s request for minutes of a meeting was ignored. 15. On May 10, 2018, Complainant was informed she would be permitted to have union representation during a meeting with management only if the representative were available during the scheduled meeting. 16. On May 10, 2018, the Assistant Chief accused Complainant of being at payroll too long. 17. Complainant’s coworkers did not want to talk or interact with her. 2023000091 3 Complainant requested a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). The AJ issued a decision without a hearing finding no discrimination. The Agency issued its final order adopting the AJ’s decision. Complainant appealed, and the Commission’s prior decision affirmed the Agency’s final order. In her request, Complainant provides no evidence to warrant granting her 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) (Aug. 5, 2015), at 9-18; 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. 2021001791 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. 2023000091 4 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 March 6, 2023 Date