EEOC Appeal 2020000950

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Karlene G., 1
Complainant,
v.
Wilbur L. Ross, Jr.,
Secretary,
Department of Commerce
(National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration),
Agency.
Request No. 2020000950
Appeal No. 2019004763
Agency No. 04-54-00116
DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
Complainant 	requested 	that 	the 	Equal 	Employment 	Opportunity 	Commission 	(EEOC 	or
Commission) reconsider its decision in EEOC Appeal No. 2019004763 (November 15, 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).
On May 18, 2004, the parties executed an agreement to settle Agency Case Nos. 02-54-00280 and
04-54-00116. 	In relevant part, the settlement agreement required the Agency to reassign
Complainant from her position as a Meteorologist, GS-1340-13 at the Radar Operations Center,
Norman, Oklahoma to a position as Information Technology Officer, GS-2210-13, at the Green
Bay, Wisconsin, Weather Forecast Office. 	Complainant, initially, sought a hardship transfer to
the Green Bay facility to care for her ailing parents. 	Approximately 13 years later, the Agency
issued a “Notice of Directed Reassignment.” The Agency directed Complainant to take an IT
Specialist position in Silver Spring, Maryland, starting November 16, 2017.
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.

2020000950	2
Complainant accepted the reassignment and reported to the Silver Spring facility. Subsequently,
she, among other things, alleged that the Agency, by reassigning her to Maryland, violated the
2004 settlement agreement.
In our previous decision, we noted the settlement agreement did not include any language
regarding the duration of the reassignment and thus, a reasonable amount of time would be
imputed. We found the Agency complied with the agreement when Complainant was reassigned
to Green Bay, Wisconsin and remained working there for more than a decade. The decision made
clear, however, that in finding no violation of the settlement agreement, the Commission was not
opining on Complainant’s allegation that she was discriminated against by the Agency with respect
to the reassignment.
In her request for reconsideration, Complainant argues that the previous decision was clearly
erroneous and will have a substantial impact on the on the policies, practices, or operations of the
Agency. She, however, for the most part, discussed why she believes the Agency’s actions were
discriminatory and how they affected both her and her parents. Complainant also maintained that
the previous decision did not consider “the circumstances for [her] request, [her] parents’ health
issues and [the] need for [her] to provide ongoing care. . . .” She also maintained that the Agency
“extorted” her into signing the settlement agreement by making her transfer contingent upon
signing the agreement.
In response, the Agency argues, in pertinent part, that Complainant’s request should be denied.
We remind Complainant 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). A reconsideration request is an opportunity to demonstrate that the
previous decision involved a clearly erroneous interpretation of material fact or law; or (2) will
have a substantial impact on the policies, practices, or operations of the Agency.
With respect to Complainant’s assertion that she was extorted into signing the agreement, we note
that this matter was not raised on appeal. The Commission has consistently held that arguments
raised for the first time on request for reconsideration cannot be considered at this stage of the
proceedings. Complainant v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Request No. 0520130288 (Mar.
21, 2014); Choates v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, EEOC Request No. 05970012 (May
21, 1998). Therefore, the Commission will not consider this new argument here. 	Furthermore,
because Complainant has not put forth any arguments which the Commission finds to be material
to the outcome of the underlying decision, or that were not previously considered in rendering the
underlying decision, we find no evidence that Complainant has met the criteria for reconsideration.
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.

2020000950	3
The decision in EEOC Appeal No. 2019004763 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. 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 24, 2020
Date