0520120485
11-21-2012
Phyllis L. Black, Complainant, v. Timothy F. Geithner, Secretary, Department of the Treasury (Internal Revenue Service), Agency.
Phyllis L. Black,
Complainant,
v.
Timothy F. Geithner,
Secretary,
Department of the Treasury
(Internal Revenue Service),
Agency.
Request No. 0520120485
Appeal No. 0120113435
Agency No. IRS-11-0130-F
DENIAL
Complainant timely requested reconsideration of the decision in Phyllis L. Black v. Department of the Treasury, EEOC Appeal No. 0120113435 (May 10, 2012). EEOC Regulations provide that the Commission may, in its discretion, grant a request to reconsider any previous Commission decision 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(b).
On August 3, 2010, Complainant initiated EEO Counselor contact, and on February 14, 2011, filed a formal complaint in which she alleged that the Agency subjected her to reprisal because of her prior EEO activity when, on May 24, 2010, she received a lowered annual performance evaluation. The record reveals that, on March 2, 2011, Complainant received a letter from the Agency in which she was informed that she had the opportunity to show why the 45-day time limit for initiating EEO Counselor contact should be extended in this case. Complainant was given 15 days to respond to the Agency's letter.
In a letter dated March 14, 2011, Complainant generally asserted that she contacted an EEO Counselor in a timely fashion, and she would provide the name of the Counselor she initially contacted at her "earliest convenience." Complainant did not provide the name of the Counselor within 15 days of receiving the Agency's letter. In a final decision dated April 4, 2011, the Agency dismissed Complainant's complaint on the basis that Complainant initiated untimely EEO counselor contact. In our previous decision, the Commission affirmed the Agency's dismissal of Complainant's complaint.
In her request for reconsideration, Complainant maintains that when she attempted to file an EEO complaint in early June 2010, "it seemed that there was no EEO office or staff person at the Memphis Service Center." Complainant identifies the previous EEO Counselor as the person whom she initially contacted about her EEO claim. Complainant contends that she left a voicemail message for and sent an email message to the previous EEO Counselor on June 7, 2010, in which she stated that she wanted to file an EEO complaint. Complainant contends that the previous EEO Counselor informed her via email that she had become an EEO Specialist, and she was in training.
We note 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) (rev. Nov. 9, 1999), at 9-17; see, e.g., Lopez v. Dep't of Agriculture, EEOC Request No. 0520070736 (Aug. 20, 2007). Rather, 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. Complainant has not done so here. We note that, when given the opportunity to explain why the time limit for initiating counseling should be waived, Complainant did not identify the EEO Counselor she purportedly initially contacted. Moreover, Complainant did not raise any arguments on appeal. Complainant cannot now revive her complaint by belatedly making new representations in her request for reconsideration. Therefore, as our previous decision found, Complainant's complaint was properly dismissed because it was initiated by untimely EEO Counselor contact.
Consequently, 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(b), and it is the decision of the Commission to DENY the request. The decision in EEOC Appeal No. 0120113435 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 (Z0610)
If you decide to file a civil action, and if you do not have or cannot afford the services of an attorney, you may request from the Court that the Court appoint an attorney to represent you and that the Court also permit you to file the action without payment of fees, costs, or other security. See Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. � 2000e et seq.; the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 29 U.S.C. �� 791, 794(c). The grant or denial of the request is within the sole discretion of the Court. Filing a request for an attorney with the Court does not extend your time in which to file a civil action. Both the request and the civil action must be filed within the time limits as stated in the paragraph above ("Right to File a Civil Action").
FOR THE COMMISSION:
______________________________
Carlton M. Hadden, Director
Office of Federal Operations
November 21, 2012
Date
2
0520120485
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
2
0520120485