U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Miriam B.,1 Complainant, v. Chad F. Wolf, Acting Secretary, Department of Homeland Security (Citizenship and Immigration Services), Agency. Request No. 2020004637 Appeal No. 2020003017 Agency No. HS-CIS-01821-2019 DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION Complainant timely requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) reconsider its decision in Miriam B. v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., EEOC Appeal No. 2020003017 (July 22, 2020). 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-1801-14 Adjudications Officer with the Immigrant Investor Program Office in Washington, D.C., filed an EEO complaint alleging that she was subjected to a hostile work environment based on her sex (female) and in reprisal for prior protected EEO activity when: 1. On May 26, 2019, she learned that the Perpetrator of sexual harassment against her violated her Civil Protection Order (CPO) by coming within 100 yards of her workplace, and that the Federal Protective Services (FPS) failed to respond adequately and take appropriate action consistent with the Agency’s workplace violence directive; 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. 2020004637 2 2. The Agency, particularly Perpetrator’s new chain of command, failed to take substantive action to protect her safety and well-being at the worksite from the Perpetrator. (On or about January 7, 2018, the Perpetrator was demoted from Supervisory Adjudication Officer, GS-15 to Adjudication Officer, GS-14, moved from Complainant's facility to one about a mile away, and came under a new chain of command); and 3. In December 2019, she learned that the Agency’s Office of Investigations closed its misconduct inquiry without interviewing her. The Agency dismissed her complaint for failure to state a claim, finding that the incidents in question did not rise to the level of actionable harassment and that one of the issues in her complaint constituted a collateral attack upon the proceedings of another forum. Complainant appealed, and in our previous decision, we affirmed. The Commission found that Complainant did not see the Perpetrator on the dates in question nor did she claim that he entered her office building. Thus, the Commission found that the alleged incidents did not rise to the level of actionable harassment perpetrated by the Agency nor would the conduct reasonably likely deter Complainant from engaging in EEO activity. As a result, the Commission affirmed the Agency’s dismissal. 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). 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. She has not presented any argument or evidence tending to establish the existence of either reconsideration criterion. She merely attempts to relitigate her appeal on the merits, raising contentions similar to those that we considered and rejected in our previous 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 No. 2020003017 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. 2020004637 3 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 November 10, 2020 Date
