EEOC Appeal 2020001386

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Gretchen M.,1
Complainant,
v.
Andrew M. Saul,
Commissioner,
Social Security Administration,
Agency.
Request No. 2020001386
Appeal No. 0120182533
Agency No. ATL170720SSA
DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
Complainant timely requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or
Commission) reconsider its decision in Gretchen M. v. Social Security Administration, EEOC
Appeal No. 0120182533 (Nov. 5, 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).
During the period at issue, Complainant worked as a Senior Case Technician for the Agency’s
Office of Disability Adjudication and Review. 	Complainant was officially assigned to a duty
location in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. However, she was out-stationed to a field office while the
Fort Lauderdale office underwent renovations.
On September 25, 2017, Complainant filed a formal EEO complaint claiming that the Agency
discriminated against her based on disability (Chronic Bronchitis and Pulmonary issues),
national origin (Hispanic), race (Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander), and in reprisal for prior
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.

2020001386	2
protected EEO activity when, in May 2017, Complainant was ordered to report to the Fort
Lauderdale, Florida location on June 5, 2017, which she claimed effectively cancelled her
reasonable accommodation and forced her to retire on July 1, 2017.
The Agency issued a final decision on June 18, 2018, finding no discrimination.2 In EEOC
Appeal No. 0120182533, the Commission affirmed the Agency’s final decision.
The Commission first determined that the Agency properly separated Complainant’s constructive
discharge claim from her reasonable accommodation claim. However, the Commission clarified
that the Agency improperly determined that Complainant’s discrimination claims based on
disability, national origin, race, and reprisal were duplicative even though the report of
investigation included all bases and claims.
The Commission found that with respect to Complainant’s disparate treatment claims, the
Agency 	articulated 	legitimate, 	non-discriminatory 	reasons 	for 	cancelling 	Complainant’s
temporary reasonable accommodation to work at the field office because the renovations at the
Fort Lauderdale location were complete and air quality tests determined that the office space was
suitable. 	Thus, the Commission reasoned that the Agency’s decision to cancel Complainant’s
temporary reasonable accommodation was not based on Complainant’s race, national origin,
disability, or prior EEO activity.
Regarding Complainant’s denial of reasonable accommodation, the Commission determined that
the Agency allowed Complainant to temporarily work at a field office for a two-year period
(from August 2015 through June 2017) while her assigned duty location was being renovated.
The Commission further determined that once the renovation was completed, the Agency tested
and retested the air quality at the renovated duty location and the tests revealed that the air
quality had returned to normal. The Commission further noted that Complainant had an allergic
reaction 	when 	she 	returned 	to 	the 	office 	in 	June 	2017 	and 	requested 	a 	reasonable
accommodation. 	The Agency responded to this request by scheduling a meeting to discuss a
new reasonable accommodation for Complainant and by allowing Complainant to telework
while this request was being processed. The Commission explained that Complainant provided
the necessary medical documentation on June 19, 2017, related to her June 2017 reasonable
accommodation request, but Complainant informed her supervisor the following day, on June 20,
2017, that she intended to retire.
2 We note that the Agency separated Complainant’s claims into two separate complaints.
Agency No. ATL-17-0965-SSA covers Complainant’s constructive discharge claim. We further
note that in its decision, the Agency only determined that Complainant failed to demonstrate that
she was discriminated against when her temporary reasonable accommodation was cancelled on
June 5, 2017, which required that she return to her official duty location. However, the Agency
determined that Complainant’s disparate treatment claims based on race, national origin, and
reprisal were duplicative of her reasonable accommodation claim and, therefore, the Agency
reasoned that it was not necessary to conduct a disparate treatment analysis.

2020001386	3
In 	the 	instant 	request 	for 	reconsideration, 	Complainant 	submits 	a 	statement 	expressing
disagreement with the appellate decision and reiterates arguments previously made on appeal.
However, we emphasize 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), Chap. 9 § VI.A (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.
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. 0120182533 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.

2020001386	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
August 20, 2020
Date