Rhonda H.,1 Complainant,v.John F. Lansing, Director, Broadcasting Board of Governors, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Dec 12, 2018

0120172286 (E.E.O.C. Dec. 12, 2018)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013

Rhonda H.,1
Complainant,

v.

John F. Lansing,
Director,
Broadcasting Board of Governors,
Agency.

Appeal No. 0120172286

Hearing No. 570-2015-00045X

Agency No. OCR-13-14

DECISION

On June 19, 2017, Complainant filed an appeal with the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (EEOC or Commission), pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.403(a), from the Agency’s
May 19, 2017 final order concerning her equal employment opportunity (EEO) complaint alleging
employment discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), as
amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967
(ADEA), as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. Our review is de novo. For the following reasons,
the Commission AFFIRMS the Agency’s final order.

BACKGROUND

At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as an Administrative
Assistant, GS-0303-09, at the Agency’s work facility in Washington, D.C.

On August 29, 2013, Complainant filed an EEO complaint wherein she claimed that the Agency
discriminated against her and subjected her to a hostile work environment in reprisal for her prior
protected EEO activity. Complainant subsequently amended her complaint. The claims accepted
for investigation were that:

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.
0120172286

2

1. Since Complainant filed her prior complaint in 2008 and ongoing, her supervisors
interfered with her ability to effectively perform her duties, progress in her career, and
impeded her growth and development as follows:

a. Denying Complainant the same opportunity as her colleagues to perform her duties at
a higher level to obtain a promotion.

b. Targeting, training, preselecting and promoting her colleagues, but not her, even though
no vacancy announcements had been posted.

c. Deliberately requiring a turnaround and completion of work product too quickly to
make a timely delivery.

d. Deleting information Complainant needed to perform, violating the separation of duties
between herself and her Supervisor, which she discovered on June 25, 2013.

e. Holding a meeting with Complainant and an Employee/Labor Relations staff member
around July 17, 2013, to inform Complainant she needed to take several training classes
in an effort to harass her.

f. Treating Complainant less favorably than her coworkers by giving them opportunities
to perform duties that allowed them to be eligible for positions management created for
them.

g. Removing assignments and reducing the scope of Complainant’s duties, which
diminished her responsibilities and denied her professional opportunities.

h. During a meeting on September 15, 2008, being told by her Supervisor there was
nothing for her at the office and that she should look for another job.

i. Failing to give her performance feedback or issue a performance rating from May 1,
2011-April 30, 2012, and May 1, 2012-April 30, 2013.

j. Being promised by the Director to receive greater opportunities in April 2010, but the
opportunities were never offered.

k. Being subjected to verbal abuse by her supervisors and coworkers, to include, insulting
remarks, false accusations, belittling and demeaning remarks.

l. Selecting an employee without prior EEO activity for a position even though
Complainant trained the employee and at least one of the employee’s duties were
assigned to Complainant on May 8, 2013, following the employee’s selection.

0120172286

3
m. On May 6, 2013, being notified that she is only allowed to prepare requisitions and not
submit them, denying her the opportunity to gain valuable experience in the execution
of significant tasks.

n. On July 1, 2013, in a meeting with her Supervisor and two Labor Relations
representatives, Complainant was accused of being confrontational and combative,
Complainant believed for complaining about being treated discriminatorily.

o. On August 16, 2013, being denied the opportunity to perform administrative duties
involving budgetary matters critical to the Agency’s mission.

p. Failing to appropriately assign Complainant meaningful work that supports the
Agency’s mission because she is the only employee whose position description dates
back to May 21, 2001, her responsibilities have not been enhanced with the assignment
of upper-level critical tasks, and she remains a GS-9, although she was responsible for
training Administrative Officers and Engineers on the Agency’s automated financial
system (Maintenance) since its implementation in 2008.

q. Not assigning Complainant’s requisitions for processing to other staff during her
absence from September 4-10, 2013.

r. Complainant’s Supervisor refused to grant Complainant compensatory time to
complete those requisitions upon her return.

2. On September 25, 2013, Complainant’s request for credit card training was denied, which
resulted in Complainant’s warrant authority (ability to authorize large purchases) being
removed and her credit card purchasing authority being reduced to the micro-purchase
threshold of $3,000, effective October 7, 2013.

At the conclusion of the investigation, the Agency provided Complainant with a copy of the report
of investigation and notice of her right to request a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge.
Complainant timely requested a hearing.

The Administrative Judge initially assigned to the matter issued an Order on Claims on March 18,
2016. The case was later transferred to a new Administrative Judge (AJ). The AJ observed from
the parties’ various filings that the parties disputed the proper framing of the claims at issue. The
AJ subsequently accepted additional claims in support of Complainant’s hostile work environment
claim. The additional incidents added to the complaint included:

s. On December 18, 2013, Complainant was berated and accused by her Supervisor of
failing to perform her duties when she refused to make an unauthorized purchase of
Google glasses.

0120172286

4
t. In June 2014, Complainant failed to receive a timely rating for the performance
appraisal period May 1, 2013-April 30, 2014, which included a performance plan at the
beginning of the rating period, or a periodic progress review.

u. On September 15, 2014, Complainant’s request for an opportunity to manage and
complete administrative officer assignments upon the departure of three administrative
officers was denied.

v. On October 18, 2014, Complainant’s request to be assigned the workload of a recently
deceased administrative officer was denied.

w. On May 14, 2015, Complainant was berated and cursed at by her Supervisor for failing
to perform her duties when she refused to make an unauthorized credit card purchase
for a Patriot Technologies subscription.

x. On July 1, 2015, Complainant was berated and cursed at by her Supervisor for failing
to de-obligate funds on a requisition to which she had no access.

y. On July 1, 2015, during a meeting with Complainant, Complainant’s supervisors,
Labor and Employee Relations staff and union representative, Complainant’s
Supervisor stated that she took away Complainant’s duties because she filed a
grievance, referring to Complainant’s prior EEO activity.

z. On August 10, 2015, Complainant’s request for a replacement printer was ignored by
her supervisors which caused unnecessary delay in her work for two months.

aa. On September 20, 2015, Complainant was berated and accused by her Supervisor of
not making a credit card purchase when an administrative officer had attached the
wrong requisition to the request that prevented her from processing it.

bb. On October 21, 2015, Complainant was falsely accused by her Supervisor of failing to
complete her work assignments in a meeting with Labor and Employee Relations staff.

cc. On December 15, 2015, Complainant was threatened with bodily harm by a coworker
during a staff meeting attended by the supervisors, who remained silent and failed to
take appropriate corrective action.

Over Complainant's objections, the AJ granted the Agency’s motion and issued a summary
judgment decision on April 26, 2017.2

2 Numerous claims were dismissed by the Agency and while the matter was before the AJ.
Complainant did not contest the dismissal of these claims on appeal; therefore, these claims will
not be further addressed in this decision. The Commission will, however, consider these claims
as background evidence in support of Complainant’s overall hostile work environment claim.
0120172286

5
The AJ noted that Complainant previously filed an EEO complaint in March 2008, wherein
Complainant named her Supervisor then as one of the officials who allegedly discriminated against
her. This official, now Complainant’s second-level Supervisor (S2), was also named in the instant
complaint. The AJ stated that Complainant initiated contact with an EEO Counselor with respect
to the instant complaint on June 27, 2013. Complainant’s current Supervisor (S1) assumed that
position in December 2010.

The AJ observed that effective May 7, 2012, all cardholders, including Complainant, had to
obligate their own micro-purchases and complete purchase card reconciliations within Momentum
(the Agency’s finance system). The AJ noted that as a cardholder, Complainant could not assume
the allotment holder duties of an Administrative Officer as assuming such duties would create a
conflict of interest with Complainant’s obligating duties and violate internal controls. The AJ
stated that in March 2013, S2 arranged a detail opportunity for Complainant on the Reporting
Team of the Financial Support Branch, but that Complainant declined the detail. According to the
AJ, on June 26, 2013, S2 attempted to schedule a meeting concerning Complainant’s accusation
that S2 had deleted certain Complainant’s requisitions in Momentum. Complainant refused to
meet and called her supervisors bullies. S2 subsequently required that Complainant attend training
to improve her communications skills, conflict resolution, interpersonal/intrapersonal training, and
customer service.

The AJ stated that on August 26, 2013, Complainant emailed S2 and her third-level supervisor
(S3) to request she be assigned the budget execution and formulation duties of a recently retired
Administrative Officer, and to assist an ill Administrative Officer in those same duties. The AJ
noted that S2 stated that these duties had been redistributed to other team members. According to
S2, S1 and two administrative officers unanimously agreed that Complainant’s Fiscal Year 2014
duties should remain relatively unchanged until she completed her current training assignments
and demonstrated the ability to independently resolve administrative problems in a timely and
collegial way. The AJ stated that on or about October 1, 2014, Complainant’s duties extended to
serve as a Technology, Services and Innovation (TSI) Division backup travel specialist with the
E2 travel system.

With regard to the Complainant’s claims regarding training or lack thereof, the AJ observed that
on January 8, 2010, S2 (then Complainant’s Supervisor) granted Complainant an excused absence
to attend a Principle of Finance training class. The AJ noted that in 2011, Complainant nominated
S1 for an award, noting that S1 had assisted her in gaining a significant amount of training and
experience. The AJ stated that S1 trained Complainant to be her backup allotment holder. The AJ
further stated that between 2009-2012, S2 authorized payment of seven of Complainant’s college
courses.

The AJ observed that Complainant’s position description required skill in performing under
pressure with short and urgent deadlines. The AJ noted that after Complainant attended an
assigned training in September 2013, Complainant had 11 credit card requests to process, a credit
card reconciliation statement to complete, and three itemized requests to commit funds for cell
phones.
0120172286

6
On September 13, 2013, Complainant informed her supervisors that she had only completed the
three itemized requests. According to the AJ, on or about September 18, 2013, S1 received
fourteen unprocessed credit card requests from Complainant. The AJ observed that another card
holder processed five credit card requests in two and a half hours and Complainant in contrast
processed five credit card requests in two days, and that some remained unprocessed for the Fiscal
Year.

The AJ stated that S1 was the official with authority to submit itemized requests to commit funds
in the Momentum Computer System. The AJ noted that on May 6, 2013, S1 assigned Complainant
the duty of entering itemized requests in the Momentum system for training purposes. However,
S1 informed Complainant that although she would be entering itemized requests, she would not
be submitting them based on the Agency’s policy on functions of purchase card holders. The AJ
stated that on or about June 25, 2013, S1 deleted multiple itemized request documents that
Complainant had created in the Momentum Computer System. The AJ stated that the deleted
itemized requests were duplicates of those itemized requests that were already processed.
According to the AJ, the deletions were due to the Chief Financial Officer’s request to clear out
the itemized requests that were in hold status to avoid confusion and overload of the system due
to the unprocessed itemized requests.

The AJ noted that during a December 15, 2015 staff meeting, Complainant and a coworker
engaged in a heated discussion. Complainant reported the incident alleging that her coworker had
threatened her. The Labor and Employee Relations office investigated Complainant’s claim of a
workplace threat and concluded there was no credible threat of harm to her. An Administrative
Officer counseled the coworker concerning the manner in which she addressed Complainant
during the staff meeting, and the coworker apologized to Complainant.

In terms of Complainant’s performance evaluations, the Agency stated that for the rating periods
of 2011-2012, 2012-2013, and 2013-2014, S1 was late completing performance evaluations for all
of her staff, including Complainant. The AJ noted that on November 22, 2013, Complainant was
informed that her purchase card authority was reduced to the micro-level of $3,000 because the
Office of Contracts determined that the TSI Division did not require purchases above the micro-
purchase threshold. The AJ stated that the purchasing authority was also reduced for two other
individuals pursuant to this decision.

The AJ determined that the complaint mostly consisted of discrete personnel actions for which the
Agency had articulated legitimate, non-retaliatory reasons. The AJ found that Complainant failed
to proffer sufficient evidence of pretext to withstand summary judgment on these claims. With
respect to the remaining claims, the AJ found that Complainant failed to proffer evidence of a
nexus between the alleged harassment and her prior protected EEO activity. The AJ found that
Complainant provided no evidence of retaliatory motive as to the denial of promotional
opportunities, training and valuable work experience at issue in claims 1 (a), (b), (f), (g), (h), (j),
(l), (m), (o), (p), (q), (u), (v) and claim (2). The AJ stated that Complainant did not identify any
similarly situated employee who was treated more favorably.
0120172286

7
According to the AJ, with the exception of two coworkers, all of the other coworkers referenced
by Complainant were administrative officers in higher pay grades as early as January 2008. The
AJ stated that claims about Complainant and the selection of these individuals would be untimely.

In terms of the training opportunities, the AJ stated that Complainant acknowledged that S1 had
done a good job in training her. The AJ pointed out that it is not disputed that S2 authorized
thousands of dollars of training for Complainant and that S1 assigned her back-up holder allotment
duties, back-up credit card duties, and back-up travel specialist duties. With respect to claim 1(m),
the AJ stated that it was clear it would have been a violation of internal controls for Complainant
to both prepare and submit requisitions. As for Complainant’s claim 1(q), that her requisitions
should have been reassigned during her four-day absence, the AJ noted that Complainant provided
no evidence that other employees’ duties were routinely reassigned during their short-term
absences or that the denial of compensatory time to complete her requisitions upon her return,
claim 1(r), was in any way motivated by reprisal.

With regard to claim (2), the AJ reasoned that Complainant was denied credit card training because
the training was for a contracting officer and at that point Complainant was no longer a contracting
officer because her purchasing authority had been reduced. As for the alleged denial of
advancement opportunities at issue in claims 1(v) and (u), the AJ observed that management
wanted Complainant to focus on improving her teamwork skills. The AJ further stated that when
an administrative officer died, Complainant, a cardholder, could not assume her allotment duties
due to internal controls.

With respect to Complainant being berated and accused of failing to perform her duties, the AJ
found that the evidence did not indicate harassment occurred. As for the incident concerning
Complainant refusing to make an unauthorized purchase of Google glasses, the AJ stated that
Complainant could not identify any conduct that was offensive besides S2’s tone when she told
her to make the purchase. In terms of the purchase of a Patriot Technologies subscription,
Complainant claimed that the purchase was unauthorized and she took offense to S1’s tone. The
AJ observed that S1 specifically addressed Complainant’s concern about the purchase. The AJ
noted that in another instance, Complainant incorrectly identified S1 as berating and cursing her
for failing to de-obligate funds on a requisition in which she had no access, when it was actually a
co-worker who allegedly berated and cursed her and that Complainant did not indicate she reported
the incident.

In terms of claim 1(bb), concerning Complainant’s meeting with Labor and Employee Relations
staff about the timeliness of her card purchases, Labor and Employees Relations concluded that
some of Complainant’s credit card work could have been processed in a more timely manner, and
others were more legitimately delayed. With regard to claim 1(cc), the AJ observed that Labor
and Employee Relations investigated the matter and concluded there was no credible threat to
Complainant.

0120172286

8
As for claims concerning performance appraisals, short deadlines and the printer, the AJ stated
that it is undisputed that S1 was late in issuing everyone’s performance evaluations, not just that
of Complainant. The AJ observed that Complainant’s job sometimes required her to complete
assignments on an urgent basis. The AJ noted that Complainant did not provide evidence that
anyone else was not also equally subjected to such deadlines. As for Complainant’s request for a
replacement printer being ignored, the AJ stated that Complainant did not proffer any facts relating
this incident to any prior EEO activity.

The AJ observed that both S1 and S2 were working with Complainant to improve her problem-
solving and teamwork skills. The AJ pointed out that S1 directed Complainant to attend several
courses to improve her communication and conflict resolution skills. S1 stated that she and other
managers observed that Complainant could be very offensive or too aggressive when working with
others. According to S2, changes to Complainant’s Fiscal Year 2014 assignments would be
modest until she completed her current training assignments and demonstrated the ability to
independently resolve administrative problems in a timely and collegial way. The AJ stated that
S2 cited an incident where Complainant questioned S1’s authority to make assignments, and
another incident when Complainant attributed her mistake to one of her colleagues.

With regard to claim 1(y), the AJ observed that Complainant argued that S1’s statement during a
meeting on July 1, 2015, to discuss her grievance constituted per se reprisal. Complainant claimed
that S1 stated that she took her allotment holder duties away because she had filed a grievance.
The AJ pointed out though that Complainant’s allotment duties were removed in 2012 and
Complainant did not file the instant complaint until 2013. S1 disputed Complainant’s claim and
stated that what she actually said was that she took away certain job duties from Complainant and
“the next thing I [knew] there was a grievance.” Two witnesses who attended the meeting
corroborated S1’s statement noting that it was an acknowledgment of fact that Complainant had
filed a grievance. The AJ found that Complainant did not present any evidence indicating that the
grievance was EEO-related. The AJ rejected Complainant’s argument that the statement
constituted per se reprisal and stated that it could not serve as evidence of retaliatory animus.

The AJ concluded that Complainant failed to show that any of the Agency’s actions were
motivated by retaliatory animus. As a result, the AJ found that Complainant had not been subjected
to reprisal or a retaliatory hostile work environment. The Agency subsequently issued a final order
fully adopting the AJ’s decision. The instant appeal followed.

CONTENTIONS ON APPEAL

On appeal, Complainant focused her argument largely on the July 1, 2015 meeting. According to
Complainant, S1 admitted at her deposition that she utilized the term grievance when she was
actually referring to Complainant’s EEO complaint. Complainant argued that the union
representative understood S1 was referring to her EEO activity as the complaint was being
discussed at the time S1 made the remark, and because there was no other grievance that S1 could
be referring to concerning her duties being taken away.
0120172286

9
In the alternative, Complainant argued that if S1’s version of her statement was true, then the
statement constituted per se reprisal because it directly criticizes her EEO activity to her and the
others in the meeting, thereby evidencing retaliatory animus. Complainant noted that S1 did not
attempt to correct this testimony in the errata sheet to her deposition. According to Complainant,
S1 has also taken job duties away from her after the filing of the instant complaint such as her
warrant authority and the reduction in purchasing authority from $10,000 to $3,000, invoicing
duties and the removal of backup allotment duties in 2014. Complainant argues in light of there
being multiple witnesses with conflicting accounts, a hearing was necessary and summary
judgment should not have been granted.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

The Commission's regulations allow an AJ to grant summary judgment when he or she finds that
there is no genuine issue of material fact. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.109(g). An issue of fact is “genuine”
if the evidence is such that a reasonable fact finder could find in favor of the non-moving party.
Celotex v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986); Oliver v. Digital Equip. Corp., 846 F.2d 103, 105
(1st Cir. 1988). A fact is “material” if it has the potential to affect the outcome of the case. In
rendering this appellate decision we must scrutinize the AJ’s legal and factual conclusions, and
the Agency’s final order adopting them, de novo. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.405(a)(stating that a
“decision on an appeal from an Agency’s final action shall be based on a de novo review…”); see
also Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive for 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 (EEO-MD-
110), at Chap. 9, § VI.B. (as revised, Aug. 5, 2015)(providing that an administrative judge’s
determination to issue a decision without a hearing, and the decision itself, will both be reviewed
de novo).

Hostile Work Environment

To establish a hostile work environment claim, Complainant must show that: (1) she belongs to a
statutorily protected class; (2) she was subjected to harassment in the form of unwelcome verbal
or physical conduct involving the protected class; (3) the harassment complained of was based on
her statutorily protected class; (4) the harassment affected a term or condition of employment
and/or had the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with the work environment and/or
creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment; and (5) there is a basis for
imputing liability. See Henson v. City of Dundee, 682 F.2d 897 (11th Cir. 1982). In determining
that a working environment is hostile, factors to consider are the frequency of the alleged
discriminatory conduct, its severity, whether it is physically threatening or humiliating, and if it
unreasonably interferes with an employee’s work performance. See Harris v. Forklift Systems,
Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 21 (1993); EEOC Enforcement Guidance on Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc.,
EEOC Notice No. 915.002 (Mar. 8, 1994).

Therefore, to prove her harassment claim, Complainant must establish that she was subjected to
conduct that was either so severe or so pervasive that a “reasonable person” in Complainant's
position would have found the conduct to be hostile or abusive. Complainant must also prove that
the conduct was taken because of her prior protected EEO activity.
0120172286

10
Only if Complainant establishes both of those elements, hostility and motive, will the question of
Agency liability present itself.

In the instant case, the Commission finds that the AJ properly granted summary judgment in favor
of the Agency as no material facts remain in dispute. The Commission agrees that Complainant
has failed to demonstrate she was subjected to a retaliatory hostile work environment as alleged.
Even assuming that the alleged conduct was sufficiently severe or pervasive enough to establish a
hostile work environment, the Commission finds that Complainant has failed to show that the
Agency's actions were based on retaliatory animus. We observe that Complainant’s first EEO
complaint was filed in 2008. Claims 1 (a-p) encompass incidents that Complainant contends
reflect reprisal for that complaint. The AJ observed that most of these incidents were discrete
personnel actions for which the Agency articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons. We
agree with the AJ that, with regard to the claims concerning promotional opportunities, training
and work experience (claims 1 (a), (b), (f), (g), (h), (j), (l), (m), (o), (p), (q), (u), (v) and claim (2)),
Complainant failed to provide evidence of retaliatory motivation.

As for the claims concerning being berated for failing to perform her duties, false accusations and
a threat of bodily harm (claims 1(s), (w), (x), (bb) and (cc)), we agree with the AJ’s finding that
the alleged incidents either did not occur as alleged or they were not otherwise discriminatorily
motivated. We further find that that language and the accusations at issue were not sufficiently
severe or pervasive to constitute harassment. With regard to the verbal altercation between
Complainant and a coworker, we find that the record demonstrates that harassment did not occur
as Labor and Employee Relations promptly investigated the matter and determined there was no
credible threat to Complainant.

With respect to claims 1(i) and (t), we agree with the AJ’s observation that S1 was late in issuing
everyone’s performance evaluations, not just Complainant’s. As for claim 1 (c), the AJ correctly
noted that the deadlines Complainant questioned reflect that the position sometimes required that
assignments be completed on an urgent basis. The AJ pointed out that Complainant did not provide
evidence that anyone else was also not equally subjected to such deadlines. With regard to claim
1(z), we agree with the AJ that Complainant has not proffered any facts linking management
ignoring her request for a replacement printer to her prior EEO activity.

Complainant emphasizes in her appeal the incident in claim 1(y). However, we find that the record
supports that S1 was acknowledging that a grievance had been filed after she removed some of
Complainant’s duties. We do not find sufficient evidence that S1 was referring to the instant
complaint. We note that S1 testified during cross-examination in her deposition that she never
said she removed duties from Complainant because of an EEO case or because of a grievance. As
for the duties that she removed, the Agency stated that in 2012, before the filing of the instant
complaint, S1 took away allotment holder duties that were not Complainant’s regular work duties
but rather S1’s duties, which she had temporarily assigned to Complainant for training purposes.
With regard to the removal of duties that occurred after the filing of the instant complaint, the
management officials confirmed that Complainant’s purchasing card authority on her credit card
was reduced because the Office of Contracts determined that the TSI Division did not require
0120172286

11
purchases above a certain monetary threshold. As for the backup allotment duties allegedly
removed in 2014, the management officials stated even if they were taken away, they were not
part of Complainant’s official duties. Upon review of the record, we find that S1’s remark at issue
in this claim did not constitute per se reprisal.

The Commission concludes that, based on the totality of the circumstances, Complainant has not
shown that she was subjected to a retaliatory hostile work environment. Moreover, to the extent
Complainant claims that she was subjected to disparate treatment, the Commission finds that, as
discussed above, Complainant has not demonstrated that the Agency's explanation for its actions
was pretext for reprisal. As a result, the Commission finds that Complainant was not subjected to
reprisal or a hostile work environment as alleged.

CONCLUSION

The Agency’s determination that no discrimination occurred is AFFIRMED.

STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL

RECONSIDERATION (M0617)
The Commission may, in its discretion, reconsider the decision in this case if the Complainant or
the Agency submits a written request containing arguments or evidence which tend to establish
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.
Requests to reconsider, with supporting statement or brief, must be filed with the Office of Federal
Operations (OFO) within thirty (30) calendar days of receipt of this decision. A party shall have
twenty (20) calendar days of receipt of another party’s timely request for reconsideration in
which to submit a brief or statement in opposition. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.405; Equal Employment
Opportunity Management Directive for 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 (EEO MD-110), at Chap. 9 § VII.B
(Aug. 5, 2015). All requests and arguments must be submitted to the Director, Office of Federal
Operations, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Complainant’s request may be
submitted via regular mail to P.O. Box 77960, Washington, DC 20013, or by certified mail to 131
M Street, NE, Washington, DC 20507. In the absence of a legible postmark, the request to
reconsider shall be deemed timely filed if it is received by mail within five days of the expiration
of the applicable filing period. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.604. The agency’s request must be submitted
in digital format via the EEOC’s Federal Sector EEO Portal (FedSEP). See 29 C.F.R. §
1614.403(g). The request or opposition must also include proof of service on the other party.
0120172286

12
Failure to file within the time period will result in dismissal of your request for reconsideration as
untimely, unless extenuating circumstances prevented the timely filing of the request. Any
supporting documentation must be submitted with your request for reconsideration. The
Commission will consider requests for reconsideration filed after the deadline only in very limited
circumstances. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.604(c).
COMPLAINANT’S RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (S0610)
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. If you file a request to reconsider
and also file a civil action, filing a civil action will terminate the administrative processing of
your complaint.
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

December 12, 2018
Date