EEOC Appeal 2020001359

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Charlotte L., 1
Complainant,
v.
Andrew M. Saul,
Commissioner,
Social Security Administration,
Agency.
Request No. 2020001359
Appeal No. 0120182793
Hearing No. 440-2017-00029X
Agency No. CHI-16-0290-SSA
DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
Complainant timely requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or
Commission) reconsider its decision in Charlotte L. v. Soc. Sec. Admin., EEOC Appeal No.
0120182793 (Oct. 31, 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-5 Reader Assistant at the Agency's Workload Support Unit in Chicago, Illinois
filed an EEO complaint alleging that the Agency discriminated against her and subjected her to a
hostile work environment in reprisal for prior protected EEO activity when:
1. 	From December 4, 2015 through May 21, 2016, Complainant was bullied, intimidated,
and 	undermined 	by 	her 	Operations 	Supervisor, 	subjected 	to 	excessive
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.

2020001359	2
micromanagement, and treated differently than other Reader Assistants within the work
unit; and
2. 	On or about May 21, 2016, Complainant’s contract with the Agency as a GS-5 Reader
Assistant was not renewed.
Following an investigation, Complainant requested a hearing before an EEOC Administrative
Judge (AJ). The AJ assigned to the matter granted the Agency’s motion for summary judgment
and issued a decision finding no reprisal. Therein, the AJ found that Complainant's Supervisor (S)
was unaware of Complainant’s prior protected EEO activity at the time that she made the decision
not to renew Complainant's contract and that she did so because of Complainant's behavior,
including demonstrating a lack of respect for S. Because S was unaware of Complainant's prior
EEO activity, the AJ found that Complainant failed to establish a nexus between the Agency's
action and the decision to not renew her contract. 	With regard to her harassment claim, the AJ
found that the actions complained of were insufficiently severe or pervasive to constitute a hostile
work environment. 	The Agency subsequently issued a final order fully implementing the AJ’s
decision.
Complainant appealed, and the Commission affirmed the Agency’s final order. The Commission
noted, in response to Complainant’s argument, that the AJ inadvertently listed the Department of
Veterans Administration (VA) as the Agency party; however, the Commission found this
constituted harmless error.
In the instant request for reconsideration, Complainant expresses her disagreement with the
previous decision and reiterates arguments previously made on appeal. Complainant argues that
the Commission committed a clearly erroneous interpretation of fact or law when it disregarded as
harmless error the AJ’s reference to the VA.
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). 	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. 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. 0120182793 remains the Commission's
decision. There is no further right of administrative appeal on the decision of the Commission on
this request.

2020001359	3
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 2, 2020
Date