EEOC Appeal 2020000960

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Leona B.,1
Complainant,
v.
Richard Tischner,
Director,
Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency,
Agency.
Request No. 2020000960
Appeal No. 2018000047
Agency No. CSOSA-EEO-F-17-0039
DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
Complainant 	requested 	that 	the 	Equal 	Employment 	Opportunity 	Commission 	(EEOC 	or
Commission) reconsider its decision in EEOC Appeal No. 2018000047 (October 11, 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).
In her underlying complaint, Complainant alleged that the Agency subjected her to unlawful
reprisal discrimination when: (1) on or about August 10, 2017, management lowered her overall
performance rating from a level 4 to a level 3 score; and (2) on an unspecified date, her request to
participate in the Department of Homeland Security/Federal Emergency Management Agency
surge capacity force was denied.2 Following an investigation, the Agency issued a final decision
finding no discrimination. On appeal, the Commission affirmed the Agency’s final decision.
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.
2 In her formal complaint, Complainant also alleged that the hearing examination job duties she
had been performing, which were GW-14 level duties but were never added to her position
description, were reassigned to her first line supervisor. Complainant, however, withdrew this
claim during the investigation, therefore it was not addressed on appeal.

2020000960	2
Specifically, we found that assuming, arguendo, Complainant established a prima facie case of
reprisal, the Agency nonetheless articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions
that Complainant failed to show were pretextual.
In her request for reconsideration, Complainant largely reiterates arguments made below, and fully
considered on appeal. The Commission emphasizes 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), 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.
Accordingly, 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. 2018000047 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.

2020000960	3
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 4, 2020
Date

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Isadora G.,1
Complainant,
v.
Robert Wilkie,
Secretary,
Department of Veterans Affairs,
Agency.
Request No. 2020000983
Appeal No. 2019004988
Agency No. 200I-702C-2019102993
DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
Complainant 	requested 	that 	the 	Equal 	Employment 	Opportunity 	Commission 	(EEOC 	or
Commission) reconsider its decision in EEOC Appeal No. 2019004988 (September 26, 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).
In 	her 	underlying 	complaint, 	Complainant 	alleged 	that 	the 	Agency 	subjected 	her 	to
discrimination on the bases of disability (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder), age (45), and in
reprisal for prior protected EEO activity when, from February 12, 2019 to April 18, 2019,
Complainant was subjected to harassment. Thereafter, the Agency issued a final decision
dismissing Complainant’s complaint.
On appeal, the Commission affirmed the Agency’s final decision. Specifically, the Commission
found the Agency properly dismissed Complainant’s allegation of reprisal for failing to state a
claim.
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.

2020000983	2
Additionally, the Commission affirmed the Agency’s dismissal of Complainant’s harassment
claim alleging discrimination based on disability and age. The Commission found harassment is
actionable if it is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of Complainant's
employment. We found her claims were properly dismissed because assuming she could prove
all her allegations, these actions would not rise to the level, even considered together, of a
violation of the anti-discrimination statutes.
In her request for reconsideration, Complainant largely reiterates arguments made, and fully
considered on appeal. 	The Commission emphasizes 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) (Aug. 5, 2015), at 9-18; 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. 2019004988 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.

2020000983	3
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 12, 2020
Date