EEOC Appeal 2026003200

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Sector
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Michelle M.,1
Complainant,
v.
Scott Bessent,
Secretary,
Department of the Treasury
(Internal Revenue Service),
Agency.
Request No. 2026003200
Appeal No. 2025002792
Hearing No. 570-2023-00263X
Agency No. IRS-22-0316-F
DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
Complainant 	requested 	that 	the Equal 	Employment 	Opportunity 	Commission
(EEOC or Commission) reconsider its decision in EEOC Appeal No. 2025002792
(May 26, 2026). 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
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.

2026003200	2
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).
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a Case
Advocate 	at 	the 	Agency’s 	Taxpayer 	Advocate 	Service 	in 	Laguna 	Niguel,
California.
Complainant filed a formal complaint alleging that the Agency subjected her to
discrimination and a hostile work environment in reprisal for prior protected equal
employment opportunity (EEO) activity when:
1. on November 10, 2021, a Group Manager issued Complainant an annual
evaluation noting that several aspects of her performance had decreased but
due to a lack of documentation and notice, the rating would remain as
“exceeds;”
2. on January 12, 2022, the Group Manager issued Complainant a negative
First Quarter Assessment; and
3. on February 10, 2022, the Group Manager issued Complainant a negative
Departure Rating review.
Following the Agency’s investigation, Complainant requested a hearing before an
EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ), who granted the Agency’s motion for summary
judgment. The Agency adopted the AJ’s decision. Complainant appealed.
In the previous decision, the Commission affirmed the Agency’s final order. The
appellate 	decision 	found 	that 	a 	reasonable 	factfinder 	could 	not 	find 	in
Complainant’s favor. She did not show that the alleged conduct was based on
retaliatory animus or that the Agency’s reasons that Complainant failed to make
timely contact for six (6) of her cases were pretextual.
The 	instant 	request 	for 	reconsideration 	followed. 	The 	Agency 	opposes
Complainant’s request.
In her request for reconsideration, Complainant expresses her disagreement with
the previous decision and simply reiterates arguments previously made on appeal.
For example, Complainant contends that there were inconsistencies in the Group
Manager’s affidavit, such as her denial of knowledge of Complainant’s EEO
activity until March 30, 2022, but she indicated for a different EEO complaint that

2026003200	3
she learned of Complainant’s EEO activity on September 21, 2021; and the Group
Manager stated that the Acting Deputy Executive Director was involved in the
rating decision, but he stated that he was not responsible.2
Complainant also complains that discovery was not conducted in good faith, but
the Commission has consistently held that a party may not raise new arguments in
a request for reconsideration. See, e.g., Jones v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Request
No. 05950107 (Aug. 24, 1995).
We have reviewed the various arguments raised by Complainant in the instant
request for reconsideration but find no basis to disturb the Commission’s prior
decision. Complainant presents 	arguments which were previously 	raised 	and
considered or could have been raised during the original appeal, but she does not
assert that the appellate decision contained a clearly erroneous interpretation of
material fact or law, or will have a substantial impact on the policies, practices, or
operations of the Agency.
A 	review 	of 	the 	record 	confirms 	that 	the 	Agency 	provided 	legitimate,
nondiscriminatory reasons for Complainant’s performance assessments. Notably,
Complainant’s 	second-level 	supervisor 	attested 	that 	Complainant 	was 	not
following the Internal Revenue Manual or procedures for her cases; not accurately
researching and resolving cases; and not working cooperatively with others. Report
of Investigation at 158. The Commission has held that complainants cannot
demonstrate pretext based on a subjective assessment of their own performance.
See Frederick A. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Comm., EEOC Appeal Nos.
2022003887 and 2022004927 (Feb. 21, 2024); Britany N. v. U.S. Postal Serv.,
EEOC Appeal No. 2021004882 (Jul. 11, 2023); Trent M. v. Dep’t of Commerce,
EEOC Appeal No. 2022000776 (Nov. 2, 2022).
The Commission emphasizes that a request for reconsideration is not a second
appeal. Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive for 29 C.F.R. Part
1614, Chap. 9 § VII.A (Aug. 5, 2015); see, e.g., Lopez v. Dep’t of Agric., EEOC
2 The Group Manager explained that Complainant reached out to the Acting
Deputy 	Executive 	Director, 	who 	decided 	to 	correct 	Complainant’s 	annual
evaluation. The record contains Complainant’s email complaining about her rating
and the Acting Deputy Executive Director’s response that he would speak to her
manager. Report of Investigation at 129, 175-6.

2026003200	4
Request No. 0520070736 (Aug. 20, 2007). Thus, we conclude that Complainant
has not presented any persuasive evidence to support reconsideration of the
Commission’s 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. 2025002792 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 (P0124)
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 their 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).

2026003200	5
FOR THE COMMISSION:
T. Gimbrere
________________________ 	Acting Director's signature
T. Gimbrere, Acting Director
Office of Federal Sector
9/21/2026
Date