Ardell B,,1 Complainant,v.Richard V. Spencer, Secretary, Department of the Navy, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Jun 25, 2020

2020002591 (E.E.O.C. Jun. 25, 2020)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Ardell B,,1 Complainant, v. Richard V. Spencer, Secretary, Department of the Navy, Agency. Request No. 2020002591 Appeal No. 2019002987 Hearing Nos. 430-2015-00148X and 430-2016-00158X Agency Nos. 14-00250-00895 and 15-00250-02201 DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION Complainant timely requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) reconsider its decision in Edwina W. v. Dep’t of the Navy, EEOC Appeal No. 2019002987 (Jan. 14, 2020). 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). During the period at issue, Complainant worked as a Logistics Manager, Transport, NF-2130-5, at the Agency’s Navy Command (NEXCOM) in Virginia Beach, Virginia. 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. 2020002591 2 On July 30, 2014, Complainant filed a formal EEO complaint (Complaint No. 430-2015- 00148X) claiming that the Agency discriminated against her based on sex (female) and in reprisal for prior protected EEO activity when, beginning on March 13, 2012, she was subjected to a hostile work environment, which included: 1. hostile, abusive, and/or dismissive treatment by her supervisors; 2. a larger workload than her male peers; 3. not having her own office; 4. being excluded from work-related meetings and communications; and 5. asked to train a male co-worker to take over some of her responsibilities. On June 23, 2015, Complainant filed another formal EEO complaint (Complaint No. 430-2016- 00158X) claiming that the Agency discriminated against her based on sex (female) and in reprisal for prior protected EEO activity beginning on October 22, 2014, she was subjected to a hostile work environment, which included: 1. being excluded from work-related meetings, projects, and communications; 2. not receiving responses to her work-related requests and emails; 3. assignments were taken away from Complainant; and 4. new requirements and objectives were added to her performance plan, resulting in a lower annual performance rating. The Agency conducted a separate investigation for each formal complaint and provided Complainant with copies of the reports of investigation and notices of the right to request a hearing before an EEOC Administrative (AJ) or a final decision within thirty days of receipt of the correspondence. Complainant timely requested hearings for each formal complaint, and the assigned AJ consolidated the complaints. On February 25, 2019, the AJ issued a decision by summary judgment in favor of the Agency, finding no discrimination. The AJ determined that there were no genuine issues of material fact. The AJ incorporated by reference the Agency’s Motion for Summary Judgment and found that Complainant failed to establish that her sex or retaliatory animus played any role in the disputed incidents proffered in support of her hostile work environment claim. In the instant request for reconsideration, Complainant, through counsel, submits a brief expressing disagreement with the appellate decision and reiterates arguments previously made on appeal. The Commission emphasizes 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), Chap. 9 § VI.A (Aug. 5, 2015); see, e.g., Lopez v. Dep't of Agric., EEOC Request No. 0520070736 (Aug. 20, 2007). 2020002591 3 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. 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. 2019002987 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 June 25, 2020 Date