[Redacted], Nicolle D., 1 Complainant,v.Steven T. Mnuchin, Secretary, Department of the Treasury (Internal Revenue Service), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Aug 27, 2020

Appeal No. 0120181644 (E.E.O.C. Aug. 27, 2020)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Nicolle D.,1 Complainant, v. Steven T. Mnuchin, Secretary, Department of the Treasury (Internal Revenue Service), Agency. Request No. 2020001248 Appeal No. 0120181644 Agency Nos. IRS-15-1051-F, IRS-15-1548-F, IRS-16-0238-F DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION Complainant requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) reconsider its decision in EEOC Appeal No. 0120181644 (August 20, 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). Complainant worked as a Revenue Officer, GS-1169-12, Small Business/Self-Employed Division, posted at El Monte, California. Complainant filed three EEO complaints, which were consolidated, alleging she was discriminated against on the bases of sex (female), disability, age, and reprisal. Complaint 1 included, but was not limited to, numerous claims concerning email matters, case credit reports being delayed, union time, official time, credit hours, her inventory, telework matters, reasonable accommodation, issues with various memorandums sent by management, unfair reviews, having her EEO complaint disclosed, her assignments, an unfair mid-year review, and other employees being told not to assist her. 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. 20200012482 Complaint 2 concerned, but is not limited to, claims involving the denial of credit hours, the failure to conduct case reviews and answer her questions, the failure to grant her an extension for a case consultation, denial of her request to lower her inventory, an unfair case review, management ignored her medical notes, and management denied her official time and union time. Complaint 3 primarily involved the denial of holiday pay, leave issues, her inventory, denial of credit time or overtime, denial of her reasonable accommodation requests, denial of her request to transfer to another group, unfair case reviews, the failure to assign her level 13 cases, being set aside from the group to post checks/returns, a denial of a reasonable amount of time to arrive at an office after being requested, she was not given a reasonable amount of time to complete her work, and being denied official time. Our prior appellate decision affirmed the Agency’s final decision that concluded that Complainant failed to prove that any of the events occurred because of unlawful discrimination or retaliation as alleged. As an initial matter, we note that it appears that Complainant’s request for reconsideration of EEOC’s August 20, 2019 decision was untimely filed as she did not file her request until November 18, 2019. It is noted that Complainant’s current address is the same as that to which the original appellate decision was mailed. With her request, Complainant encloses an envelope that has “Return Incorrect Address” written on it and crossed out. It also has “Rec’d 10/29/2019” written on it in what appears to be Complainant’s handwriting. Since Complainant has the envelope in which the decision was mailed, the decision was not returned to the Commission. Nonetheless, because we are denying the request for reconsideration, we need not make a decision on the timeliness. In her request for reconsideration, Complainant references various court and EEOC cases in a list format, but provides no substantive argument. We emphasize that a request for reconsideration is not a second appeal to the Commission. See EEO MD-110, Ch. 9, § VII.A. 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. 0120181644 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. 20200012483 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 27, 2020 Date