EEOC Appeal 2020001064

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Liz M., 1
Complainant,
v.
Chad R. Wolf,
Acting Secretary,
Department of Homeland Security
(Customs and Border Protection),
Agency.
Request No. 2020001064
Appeal No. 0120182780
Hearing No. 410-2017-00111X
Agency No. HSCBP246842015
DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
Complainant timely requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or
Commission) reconsider its decision in Liz M. v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., EEOC Appeal No.
0120182780 (Oct. 23, 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).
Complainant, a GS-0301-11 Staff Assistant at the Agency’s Office of Field Operations (OFO) in
Atlanta, Georgia, filed an EEO complaint in which she alleged that the Agency subjected her to
discrimination and a hostile work environment on the bases of age and in reprisal for prior
protected EEO activity. She identified multiple incidents of alleged discriminatory and retaliatory
harassment as well as two instances in which she was denied a promotion.
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.

2020001064	2
Following an investigation, Complainant requested a hearing before an EEOC Administrative
Judge (AJ). Over Complainant's objections, the AJ granted the Agency’s motion for a summary
judgment and issued a decision finding that Complainant was not subjected to discrimination or
reprisal as alleged. The Agency fully implemented the AJ’s decision in its final order.
In our appellate decision, we affirmed. With regard to Complainant’s hostile work environment
claim, we found that the incidents were generally routine managerial decisions involving the
routing of phone calls, training requests, computer equipment maintenance, informal discipline,
and the performance of duties, none of which were severe or pervasive enough to rise to the level
of a hostile work environment, either singly or collectively. We also found that Complainant failed
to establish that any of those incidents were based upon her age or prior protected EEO activity.
As for the two nonselections, the record established that the vacancies had been cancelled and
Complainant had not been able to show that the reasons given for the cancellations were a pretext
for age discrimination or reprisal.
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 (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. She has not presented any argument or evidence tending to establish the existence
of either reconsideration criterion. 	Instead, she attempts to relitigate her appeal on the merits,
raising contentions similar to those we addressed in our previous decision without raising a
genuine issue of material fact as to whether any of the officials involved in the incidents
complained of harbored an unlawful motivation in connection with those actions.
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. 0120182780 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.

2020001064	3
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