EEOC Appeal 2020001690

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Janet Y. Taylor1
Complainant,
v.
Steven T. Mnuchin,
Secretary,
Department of the Treasury
(Internal Revenue Service),
Agency.
Request No. 2020001690
Appeal No. 0120182756
Hearing Nos. 560-2015-00105X; 560-2015-00151X
Agency Nos. IRS-14-0433-F; IRS-14-0620-F
DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
Complainant timely requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or
Commission) reconsider its decision in EEOC Appeal No. 0120182756 (Nov. 5, 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 seasonal Tax Examining Technician at the Submission Processing Center in
Kansas City, Missouri, filed an EEO complaint alleging that the Agency discriminated against her
and subjected her to a hostile work environment on the bases of her race (African-American), sex
(female) and in reprisal for prior protected EEO activity when:
1. 	On March 27, 2014, her first line supervisor (S1) insisted that Complainant discuss
her EEO case with her;
1 Although it is the Commission's practice to assign a pseudonym to a decision that will be
published, Complainant specifically requested that her real name be used on the decision, rather
than a pseudonym.

2020001690	2
2. 	On April 7, 2014, S1 attempted to dissuade her from requesting official time for EEO
related activity;
3. 	On April 22, 2014, S1 issued her a performance appraisal that was inaccurate;
4. 	On April 22, 2014, S1 threatened to place her on a Performance Improvement Plan
(PIP);
5. 	April 25, 2014, S1 questioned her about sending emails during work hours;
6. 	On May 6, 2014, S1 gave her a written counseling accusing her of leaving taxpayer
information in her overhead cabinet;
7. 	On May 8, 2014, S1 instigated Complainant’s coworkers to harass and spy on her;
8. 	On May 8, 2014, accompanied by another manager, S1 came to her desk with a
fabricated written counseling claiming that she did not return quality review
documents to her work leader, and sent copies thereof to other people;
9. 	On May 9, 2014, her third line supervisor (S3) refused to give her a career ladder
promotion to Grade 5, retroactive to February 26, 2012;
10. On a recurring basis, S1 approached Complainant’s desk with other employees or
supervisors and talked to her in a purposefully loud voice about her private affairs;
11. On a continuing basis, her work was subjected to a 100 percent review by the Quality
Unit, which gave her incorrect errors;
12. On June 2, 2014, a coworker struck her with his elbow, per the encouragement of S1;
13. She was denied official time to work on EEO matters for specified amounts of hours
on six dates in June and July 2014; and
14. On July 10, 2014, she was informed she would be placed in nonwork status.
Following an investigation of the consolidated complaints, Complainant requested hearings but
subsequently withdrew her requests. The Agency issued a final decision finding no discrimination
or reprisal. On appeal, the Commission affirmed the final decision. The Commission found no
evidence that Complainant was improperly denied official time or that S1 attempted to dissuade
her from using official time. Further, the Commission found that the Complainant failed to show
that of any of the alleged incidents were based on discriminatory or retaliatory animus. As a result,
the Commission found that Complainant was not subjected to discrimination, reprisal, or a hostile
work environment as alleged.
In her request for reconsideration, Complainant largely reiterates arguments made, and fully
considered on appeal. 	Complainant argues that she was denied official time and then advances
new arguments with respect to her disparate treatment and hostile work environment claims.
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), Chap.
9 § VI.A (Aug. 5, 2015); see, e.g., Lopez v. Dep't of Agric., EEOC Request No. 0520070736 (Aug.
20, 2007). A request for reconsideration is not the time for Complainant to raise new evidence or
new arguments. 	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.

2020001690	3
Complainant has not done so here. 	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. 0120182756 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
September 9, 2020
Date