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

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Mar 21, 2023

Appeal No. 2021000652 (E.E.O.C. Mar. 21, 2023)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Maryanne S.,1 Complainant, v. Denis R. McDonough, Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs, Agency. Request No. 2022005023 Appeal No. 2021000652 Hearing No. 460-2020-00040X Agency No. 2003-0580-2019102899 DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION Complainant requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) reconsider its decision in Maryanne S. v. Department of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Appeal No. 2021000652 (August 24, 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). On May 2, 2019, Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging, as amended, that the Agency subjected her to hostile work environment harassment on the bases of her race (African American), sex (female), 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. 2022005023 2 1. On August 13, 2017, the Cat Scan Supervisor (S1) refused to give Complainant information on a fact-finding inquiry regarding aggressive behavior of a coworker (CW1). 2. On April 24, 2018, S1 changed Complainant’s tour of duty. 3. Since May 2018, S1 denied Complainant overtime. 4. On May 15, 2018, the Chief X-Ray Supervisor (S2) instructed Complainant not to call him on his personal cell phone with Agency business. 5. On May 17, 2018, management falsely accused Complainant of filing a false workers’ compensation claim (for electrocution by a machine). 6. Since May 17, 2018, management instructed Complainant to continue to use a faulty machine (an injector) although she was injured by it and a Bio Med Tech stated that he shut it down and it was in need of repair. 7. In June 2018, management looked at Complainant’s complaint with extreme skepticism. 8. On July 8, 2018, Complainant informed the Radiology Chief (S3) that CW1 was waiting outside of the emergency room for Complainant to exit the building so that she could harm her. 9. On September 7, 2018, S1 described Complainant’s work negatively, interrupted her several times as she performed a cat scan on a difficult patient, and accused Complainant of not wanting to perform her work. 10. On September 7, 2018, S1 slammed his hand down on a counter and yelled at Complainant for 15 minutes while she was on the phone and stated that he was upset with her for her complaints. 11. On September 10, 2018, CW1 entered the patient waiting area yelling at Complainant. 12. On October 18, 2018, Radiology Director (S4) informed Complainant that the reasonable accommodation documents she submitted on July 4, 2018, were never received. 13. On October 19, 2018, an Ultrasound Technician threatened Complainant by yelling in front of others that she would “slap the shit” out of Complainant in the parking lot. 14. On January 7, 2019, management issued Complainant a lower than expected performance appraisal rating. 2022005023 3 Our prior appellate decision affirmed an EEOC Administrative Judge’s (AJ) decision by summary judgment which found in favor of the Agency, finding neither discrimination nor unlawful retaliation was established. The AJ determined the incidents alleged did not rise to the level of a hostile work environment and Complainant failed to establish that they were based on discriminatory motives. 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. 2021000652 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. 2022005023 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 21, 2023 Date