EEOC Appeal 2020000085

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Nereida R.,1
Complainant,
v.
Kevin K. McAleenan,
Acting Secretary,
Department of Homeland Security
(Transportation Security Administration),
Agency.
Appeal No. 2020000085
Hearing Nos. 520-2017-00341X
520-2018-00101X
Agency Nos. 	HS-TSA-23795-2015
HS-TSA-01232-2017
DECISION
On August 13, 2019, Complainant filed an appeal, pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.403(a), from the
Agency’s July 8, 2019 final order concerning an equal employment opportunity (EEO) complaint
claiming 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.
BACKGROUND
During the period at issue, Complainant worked as a Transportation Security Officer (TSO)
assigned at LaGuardia International Airport in Queens, New York.
Complainant filed two formal complaints on July 26, 2015 (“Complaint 1” - Agency No. HS-TSA-
23795-2015) and June 10, 2017 (“Complaint 2” - Agency No. HS-TSA-01232-2017), respectively.
The Agency consolidated the formal complaints for processing.
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.

2020000085	2
Complainant claimed discrimination by the Agency based on race (African-American), sex, age
(over 40), and in reprisal for a previous EEO complaint when:2
1. 	on January 17, 2014, a Transportation Security Manager (TSM) walked up to the
Complainant “bent down, looked at her and sneered at her and then walked away;”
2. 	on February 7, 2014, Complainant was placed on leave restriction and threatened with
a charge of Absent Without Official Leave (AWOL) when a TSM pointed his finger in
her face and angrily told her to sit down;
3. 	on February 7, 2014, a Supervisory TSO informed Complainant that he was directed to
charge her with being AWOL after she returned to work area late because a TSM was
talking to her;
4. 	on February 17, 2014, Complainant received a Letter of Leave Restriction for being
tardy and AWOL, while other white male co-workers who were tardy have not been
charged AWOL or placed on leave restrictions;
5. 	on March 20, 2014, management directed Complainant to attend a new hire class and
to retrain for checkpoint duties, while younger white male co-workers were not directed
to retrain from checkpoint duties or to attend new hire classes;
6. 	on March 27, 2014, Complainant was informed that a new policy required her to be
Dual Function Officer, while other younger white male co-workers were not being
asked to continue as Dual Function Officers;
7. 	on March 29, 2014, the Federal Security Officer (FSD) refused to respond to
Complainant’s request to meet with her and her union representative to discuss
allegations of workplace harassment;
8. 	on April 5, 2014, the FSD declined Complainant’s request to meet with her and the
union representative, while he has agreed to meet with other male co-workers at their
request;
9. 	on April 7, 2014, a TSM ordered Complainant to attend training or otherwise be sent
home as AWOL, while other similarly situated white male co-workers were not
required to participate in the training;
10. on April 10, 2014, a TSM accused Complainant of refusing to follow a direct order
when he yelled at her and directed her to go see another management official.
Complainant informed the TSM that she was being harassed by the management
2 For ease of reference, we have re-numbered Complainant’s claims as claims 1 – 72.

2020000085	3
official whom she was directed to see, and the TSM ignored her and told her to return
to her work area without taking action;
11. on April 14, 2014, the FSD declined Complainant’s request to meet with her and her
union representative, while he has met with other male co-workers when they request
to see him;
12. on April 17, 2014, Complainant was presented with a Proposed of Removal (POR),
after she was charged with failure to follow instructions, failure to meet conditions of
employment, and discourteous conduct;
13. on April 24, 2014, a STSO informed Complainant that management instructed him to
reduce her Transportation Officer Performance System (TOPS) evaluation ratings from
Level 5 to Level 3;
14. on April 25, 2014, a STSO denied Complainant’s request to take Leave Without Pay
(LWOP) although she had documentation supporting her leave request;
15. on May 1, 2014, Complainant was informed that she had to take a test for Dual Function
Officer despite not receiving prior notice, while other similarly situated white male co-
workers were given sufficient notice;
16. on May 2, 2014, a TSM charged Complainant with 1 hour of AWOL while she was in
a meeting with her union representative despite having already approved her leave
request and being aware of her whereabouts;
17. on June 5, 2014, a TSM denied Complainant’s leave request for failing to follow leave
procedures and sent an email to Payroll instructing them to charge Complainant AWOL
for 4 days, even though Complainant had documentation to support her request;
18. on June 7, 2014, a STSO told Complainant that “she could file a grievance if she didn’t
like the fact that her leave request was not approved” and that management was
“working on firing her soon;”
19. on May 29, 2014, management issued Complainant a Notice of Suspension for 14-days
without pay for failing to follow leave procedures;
20. on July 3, 2014, Complainant was directed to take a certification test during the period
she was on suspension without pay;
21. on July 14, 2014, Complainant received a Letter of Extended Leave Restriction even
though the extension was signed on July 2, 2014;

2020000085	4
22. on July 14, 2014, Complainant was informed that senior management called her “toxic”
and advised others to “stay away from her” and that a TSM was upset with her and was
going to deny her anything and everything she requested;
23. on August 8, 2014, Complainant was called into a meeting with management and
received a verbal Pre-Decision concerning her attendance. 	Complainant requested a
copy of the Pre-Decision in writing but this request was denied;
24. on August 28, 2014, Complainant logged into her Online Learning Center (OLC)
account and discovered her learning plan had been changed from Dual Function Officer
to Single Function Officer, without her knowledge;
25. on October 13, 2014, a TSM informed Complainant that she would “never get
promoted and that she was placed on the black-list by senior management;”
26. on October 14, 2014, a STSO informed Complainant that he was encouraged to lower
a few scores on her TOPS evaluation because management did not agree with his
assessment;
27. on October 16, 2014, Complainant received a Notice of Three (3) Day Suspension
without pay from a Deputy Assistant Federal Security Director for failure to follow
leave procedures, AWOL, and tardiness;
28. on October 31, 2014, a Trainer informed Complainant that management attempted “to
pressure” him into giving a false statement that Complainant refused to attend training
even though she did attend the training;
29. on November 2, 2014, management denied Complainant’s request to work additional
on-the-job (OJT) hours, while other similarly situated white male co-workers were
allowed to perform additional OJT hours;
30. on November 10, 2014, Complainant’s completed OJT hours were discounted forcing
her to start her OJT program from the beginning and management officials did not give
a reason why her OJT hours were being discredited;
31. on November 11, 2014, Complainant was informed that a TSM was sitting in front of
her checkpoint watching footage of her, and taking notes;
32. on November 13, 2014, Complainant was directed to retrain on equipment that she was
already certified to work with;
33. on November 18, 2014, a Lead TSO (LTSO) informed Complainant that management
threatened her (LTSO’s) job if she did not monitor and track Complainant’s use of
breaks and every movement while working at the checkpoint;

2020000085	5
34. on November 19, 2014, a TSM reprimanded Complainant and ordered her to complete
a leave request for a half hour even though Complainant’s supervisor was aware of her
whereabouts;
35. on November 19, 2014, Complainant’s supervisor yelled at her, “flailing his hands,”
and demanding that she complete a statement explaining her absence;
36. on November 25, 2014, Complainant’s supervisor charged her with 15 minutes AWOL
after she arrived late to work while other similarly situated white male co-workers who
arrive late are not charged with AWOL;
37. on November 26, 2014, Complainant was informed that a 10-hour mandatory training
that she had already completed was no longer in her training records;
38. on December 12, 2014 a TSM directed Complainant to write a statement concerning a
situation that she did not know about, and became upset because she declined to write
a statement;
39. on February 18, 2015, Complainant received an email regarding a vacancy, stating that
newly-created baggage openings were located in her work area, but were for male
TSOs only;
40. on February 27, 2015, Complainant received a Proposal of Removal from an Assistant
FSD for failing to follow instructions;
41. on May 15, 2014, management denied Complainant the right to grieve a disciplinary
action;
42. on September 11, 2014, management denied Complainant the use of the grievance
process while similarly situated co-workers were not denied access to the grievance
process;
43. on November 25, 2015, management issued Complainant a letter placing her on leave
restriction;
44. on December 10, 2015, management issued Complainant a Notice of Proposed 10-Day
Suspension;
45. on January 20, 2016, management stated “we could have gone after Complainant
earlier but chose not to;”
46. on February 12, 2016, management marked Complainant as AWOL;
47. on February 13, 2016, management denied Complainant’s request for leave;

2020000085	6
48. on February 17, 2016, management ordered Complainant to submit a statement
regarding her February 12, 2016 absence and issued her a Notice of Final Decision
imposing a 10-Day Suspension;
49. on February 27, 2016, management approached Complainant in a threatening manner
and was shouting;
50. on March 17, 2016, management denied Complainant’s leave request and marked her
as AWOL;
51. on March 17, 2016, management asked Complainant for her statement regarding her
February 12, 2016 absence and asked “where did you punch in at?”
52. on March 23, 2016, Complainant was instructed to leave her assigned baggage location
and report to the checkpoint to make up a TOPS rotation day;
53. on March 24, 2016, management denied Complainant’s leave request and she was
marked as AWOL;
54. on April 6, 2016, Complainant was asked for a written statement regarding the
allegations from February 27, 2016;
55. on April 9, 2016, management denied Complainant’s leave request and she was marked
as AWOL;
56. on April 9, 2016, a STSO stated that “management is going to fire Complainant for her
attendance;”
57. on April 16, 2016, Complainant was issued a Letter of Leave Restriction Extension;
58. on April 19, 2016, management denied Complainant’s leave request and she was
marked as AWOL for an incident from March 17, 2016;
59. on April 20, 2016, Complainant received an unfavorable mid-year TOPS score;
60. on April 21 and 22, 2016, management denied Complainant’s leave request and she
was marked as AWOL for 16 hours;
61. on April 24, 2016, management denied Complainant’s leave request and she was
marked as AWOL;
62. on April 27, 2016, management denied Complainant’s leave request and she was
marked as AWOL;

2020000085	7
63. on April 29, 2016, management denied Complainant’s leave request and she was
marked as AWOL for 15 minutes;
64. between May 5 – 8, 2016, management denied Complainant’s leave request and she
was marked as AWOL for 24 hours;
65. on May 14, 2016, management denied Complainant’s leave request and she was
marked as AWOL for 15 minutes;
66. on May 18, 2016, management denied Complainant’s leave request and she was
marked as AWOL for 8 hours;
67. on May 19, 2016, management denied Complainant’s leave request and she was
marked as AWOL for 15 minutes;
68. on May 20, 2016, management denied Complainant’s leave request and she was
marked as AWOL for 2.25 hours;
69. on May 22, 2016, management denied Complainant’s leave request and she was
marked as AWOL for 30 minutes;
70. on May 26, 2016, management denied Complainant’s leave request and she was
marked as AWOL for 1 hour;
71. on May 27, 2016, management denied Complainant’s leave request and she was
marked as AWOL for 15 minutes; and
72. on June 2, 2016, Complainant was issued a Notice of Proposed Removal, and on
August 25, 2016, she was terminated from Agency employment.
After its investigation of the consolidated complaints, the Agency provided Complainant with a
copy of the report of investigation and notice of right to request a hearing before an Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) Administrative Judge (AJ).
Complainant timely requested a hearing. Thereafter, the AJ issued a decision by summary
judgment in favor of the Agency based on the evidence developed during the investigation.
As a preliminary matter, we find, given the multiplicity of claims, the AJ’s categorization of the
claims into four “general topics of discussion” is an efficient means of approaching these claims,
and we will do so as well, in the discussion that follows.

2020000085	8
Attendance claims
The AJ noted that in January 2016, Complainant received her first Letter of Counseling for
tardiness. Thereafter, Complainant was placed on leave restriction on July 5, 2007, April 29, 2009,
and August 31, 2012.
Between January 1, 2013 and February 10, 2014, Complainant was tardy on 125 occasions, 45 out
of which she was more than 8 minutes late, 35 time she requested unscheduled leave for an entire
shift. Complainant was also regularly absent on the date before or after her regular days off.
The AJ noted that following a meeting with the Transportation Security Manager (Manager),
Complainant took more than 30 minutes to return to her work area because she was talking to a
co-worker. 	According to her supervisor, STSO noted the tardiness in his exception report and
Complainant was coded as AWOL for 15 minutes.
On February 10, 2014, Manager issued Complainant a non-disciplinary letter of leave restriction
which was scheduled to last a 	minimum of 5 months. 	During the period of leave restriction,
Complainant was required to request any scheduled leave at least two days in advance. 	If
Complainant needed leave for a sudden illness or bona fide emergency, Complainant was required
to notify the Scheduling Operations Office as soon as possible, and to provide evidence pertaining
to the illness or emergency immediately upon return. Additionally, if Complainant was going to
be tardy to work, unless the tardiness was due to a true emergency, Complainant would be charged
AWOL in increments of 15 minutes. Complainant was further advised that failure to comply with
the terms of the leave restriction could result in disciplinary action.
The AJ noted that on March 20, 2014, Complainant received a Letter of Reprimand for her
attendance problems. On April 25, 2014, Complainant requested LWOP for that day. However,
because the request did not comply with the terms of her leave restrictions, the Manager denied
the request.
On May 2, 2014, Complainant’s request for leave that day was denied and she was charged with
an hour of AWOL because she failed to comply with the terms of her leave restriction and request
the leave two days in advance.
According to the Manager (Caucasian male, over 40), he asserted that Complainant “did not submit
a request for leave beforehand. She simply failed to show up until an hour into her shift. She gave
no advance notice. I was NOT aware of her location. She filled out a leave request after the fact
which was denied due to it’s not being submitted prior to the absence occurring as is the policy.”
With respect to Complainant’s allegation that she was meeting with her union representative at
that time, the Manager noted that Complainant “states that she was. 	No proof of this was ever
provided and is irrelevant to the charge of AWOL for being late.”

2020000085	9
On June 2, 2014, Complainant returned to work following a 4-day absence that had not been
previously approved. The AJ noted that because Complainant failed to provide documentation for
her absence (as required by her leave restriction), immediately upon her return, the Manager
directed payroll to code Complainant’s absence as AWOL. 	When Complainant later presented
documentation for her absence, the AWOL was reversed.
The AJ further noted that Complainant continued to maintain a “zero” or “near zero” sick leave
balance after the Manager issued the February 2014 leave restriction. On 35 occasions
Complainant was more than five minutes tardy. Additionally, Complainant requested unscheduled
leave for 20 full shifts and 2 partial shifts.
On July 2, 2014, having determined that Complainant’s attendance issues persisted, the Manager
issued a five-month extension of Complainant’s leave restriction. Thereafter, Complainant filed a
grievance on the leave restriction. Upon consideration of her grievance and a review of materials
relied upon to support the extension, the Deputy Assistant Federal Security Director concluded
that extension of her leave restriction was proper and denied her grievance.
On August 8, 2014, the Manager stated that he met with Complainant for a pre-decisional
discussion concerning possible discipline relating to attendance issues. Specifically, the Manager
stated that a pre-decisional is not a letter that is “issued.” He stated that it is strictly management’s
record of the discussion that management has with a TSO in order “to come to a conclusion as to
whether or not discipline is warranted. It was warranted as a required step in the discipline process
in order to give the TSO a chance to explain her issues and provide any mitigation details. The
Manager stated, however, Complainant refused to participate in the discussion and in fact stated
“you’ll never have my attention” when I attempted to speak to her so she was simply presented
with a copy of her attendance.” The record reflects that on more than 30 occasions, Complainant
was tardy and on more than 20 of those days she was more than 5 minutes tardy.
On October 15, 2014, the Deputy Assistant FSD issued Complainant a Notice of 3-Day Suspension
because of her failure to follow leave procedures, AWOLS, and tardiness. 	Complainant served
the suspension on October 24-26, 2014.
On February 27, 2015, the Deputy Federal Security Director issued Complainant a Notice of
Proposed Removal for Complainant’s repeated failure to follow instructions. 	Complainant was
not removed as a result. The record reflects that Complainant’s attendance eventually improved
sufficiently for her to be taken off of leave restrictions.
The AJ noted that in August 2015, Complainant started to have attendance and leave issues again.
Between September 1, 2015 and November 25, 2015, Complainant was absent 12 times. She was
late for 21 of her 36 shifts during the relevant period.
On December 10, 2015, the Deputy FSD issued Complainant a Notice of Proposed 10-Day
Suspension based on numerous occasions Complainant was marked AWOL or tardy.

2020000085	10
The suspension covered the time period between June 2015 and November 2015. Complainant
was tardy 36 occasions and AWOL on five occasions.
Complainant’s leave issues continued despite being on leave restriction. Over the course of the
next 5 months, Complainant was called out for unscheduled leave on 26 occasions, on 4 of those
days, Complainant failed to provide the required documentation for her absences upon her return.
Complainant was tardy 21 occasions, 6 of which were in excess of 15 minutes.
Upon review of Complainant’s continuing leave issues, the Manager extended Complainant’s
November 2015 leave restriction by 5 months. However, Complainant’s leave issues continued
after the leave restriction was extended.
The AJ noted that on June 2, 2016, the Deputy Assistant FSD issued Complainant a Notice of
Proposed Removal citing numerous instances of AWOL, tardiness, and failure to follow leave
procedures. On at least 19 occasions, Complainant was AWOL, 18 occasions she failed to follow
leave procedures set forth in her leave restriction and on 16 occasions she was tardy.
The Manager noted that Complainant was removed from Agency employment “for her constant,
persistent and wanton failure to follow directions as well as her repeated refusal to show up for
work or to arrive on time. 	Something she continued to do even after, during a span of several
years, she was issued multiple Leave Restrictions, Counselings, Reprimands and even proposals
for termination for attendance and disciplinary issues. None of which were based on EEO related
issues. All of these actions were based solely on her poor attendance record.”
Moreover, the Manager asserted that Complainant was “over the period of several years, afforded
numerous chances to correct her attendance issues. Shew as in fact afforded more chances than
many TSOs in that respect. She elected not to take advantage of these opportunities.”
The AJ determined that given Complainant’s egregious attendance issues, the Agency was clearly
justified in seeking her removal. The AJ found that 	it was not harassment or discrimination to
expect Complainant to show up for work on time, nor was it harassment or discrimination for the
Agency to put Complainant on leave restriction or discipline her when she repeatedly failed to do
so.” Moreover, the AJ noted that the Agency had legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for acting
on Complainant’s attendance issues.
Training Claims
The record reflects that as of fall 2013, there were 20 baggage-only officers employed at LaGuardia
International Airport (LGA). 	The majority of these officers had lost their dual-function
certification when failing practical skills evaluations prior to the FSD taking over the operations
at LGA. The prior FSD had allowed them to continue on a single-function baggage rather than
removing them from federal service. However, because LGA needed more officers able to screen
passengers, the FSD determined that all of these officers needed to undergo training to become
dual certified, so they could perform passenger screening when needed.

2020000085	11
The AJ noted that during the relevant period, Complainant had been a dual function officer since
2008, and had been rated as such for her performance evaluations since then. Though Complainant
consistently successfully tested as a dual function officers, she had not been fulfilling the
requirement to regularly rotate through and conduct passenger screening functions. As a result,
management determined that Complainant need to complete return-to-duty training in order to
update her certification as a dual function officer.
On March 24, 2014, Complainant was advised that she could choose between either attending
return-to-duty training or attending new hire training to become certified.
On April 7, 2014, Complainant was supposed to report to training but went to the baggage area
instead. 	A named TSM (Manager 2) informed Complainant that she was required to report for
return-to-duty training. When she went to the training room, she was met by a District Assistant
FSD and a TSM who told her that she had to take the training immediately or she would be send
home and coded as AWOL. Complainant refused to attend training until she could speak with a
union representative. Complainant was therefore sent home and marked AWOL for her shift.
On April 10, 2014, the Manager informed Complainant that she needed to meet with another TSM
about return-to-duty training, but she declined. Thereafter, the Assistant FSD issued Complainant
a Notice of Proposed Removal based on her failure to meet the conditions of her employment (i.e.
not maintaining certification required to be a dual function officer), failure to follow instructions,
and discourteous conduct.
Finally, the AJ stated that the Agency provided legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons regarding
the training issue “which are grounded in the record.”
Evaluation claims
The AJ noted that on April 24, 2014, Complainant met with her supervisor to discuss her 2014
Mid-Year evaluation. Initially, Manager 2 instructed the supervisor to lower the scores initially as
signed to his subordinates.
The Supervisory TSO completed Complainant’s 2014 performance evaluation. After meeting with
the Manager to discuss the scores he had preliminary assigned to his subordinates, the Supervisory
TSO re-evaluated the scores of Complainant and another male co-worker. 	He determined that
based on the additional information regarding Complainant’s refusal to follow directions from
various supervisors and managers that year, that Complainant’s scores in various categories should
be lowered. Complainant’s final rating for FY2014 was 4.06 out of 5 or “Exceeded Expectations.”
Performance Evaluations
Complainant claimed discrimination and harassment based on the lowering of her performance
rating in several instances. The AJ stated “however, in each of those instances the Agency had
reasons for lowering her rating and other employees had their ratings adjusted at the same time.”

2020000085	12
In addition, the AJ stated that there was no evidence in the record that similarly situated employees
were treated more favorably than Complainant.
Other Arguments & Claims
Complainant claimed that she was subjected to a workplace violence after an interaction with
Supervisory TSO (STSO). 	The record reflects that the Agency took immediate action by
separating Complainant and STSO and assigned a named TSM (Manager 3) to conduct an
investigation. Following the investigation, Manager 3 concluded that STSO had became animated
and loud during his interaction with Complainant but that it did not reach the level of workplace
violence.
With respect to Complainant’s allegation that the Agency posted male-only TSO positions for hire,
the AJ noted that gender-specific positions are permissible given the nature of some of the
screenings conducted by TSOs. 	He noted that according to the Agency, they have also posted
female-only positions in the past.
Regarding Complainant’s allegation that Agency management used a derogatory term in reference
to Complainant, the AJ noted there is no information offered about the specifics of any such
incidents, no dates or timeframes, and no witnesses to back up Complainant’s claim.
The Agency issued its final order adopting the AJ’s finding that Complainant failed to prove
discrimination as alleged. The instant appeal followed.
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, August 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).
To successfully oppose a decision by summary judgment, a complainant must identify, with
specificity, facts in dispute either within the record or by producing further supporting evidence,
and must further establish that such facts are material under applicable law. Such a dispute would
indicate that a hearing is necessary to produce evidence to support a finding that the agency was
motivated by discriminatory animus.

2020000085	13
Here, however, Complainant has failed to establish such a dispute. Even construing any inferences
raised by the undisputed facts in favor of Complainant, a reasonable fact-finder could not find in
Complainant’s favor.
Upon careful review of the AJ’s decision and the evidence of record as discussed in great detail
above, as well as the parties’ arguments on appeal, we conclude that the AJ correctly determined
that the preponderance of the evidence did not establish that Complainant was discriminated
against by the Agency as delineated in detail above.
Accordingly, we AFFIRM the Agency’s final order adopting the AJ’s decision.
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.
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).

2020000085	14
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
September 17, 2020
Date