[Redacted], Alena C., 1 Complainant,v.Carlos Del Toro, Secretary, Department of the Navy, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Mar 8, 2022

Appeal No. 2020003564 (E.E.O.C. Mar. 8, 2022)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Alena C.,1 Complainant, v. Carlos Del Toro, Secretary, Department of the Navy, Agency. Request No. 2022000819 Appeal No. 2020003564 Hearing No. 410-2019-00546X Agency No. 18-68084-01202 DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION Complainant timely requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) reconsider its decision in Alena C. v. Dep’t of the Navy, EEOC Appeal No. 2020003564 (Oct. 26, 2021). 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-0682-07 Dental Hygienist at the Agency's Dental Recall, Naval Health Clinic in Charleston, South Carolina, filed a formal EEO complaint alleging that the Agency discriminated against her on the bases of race (African American), color (brown), disability, age (born 1968), and in reprisal for prior protected activity when: 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. 2022000819 2 1. On or about June 20, 2018, Complainant’s reasonable accommodation request to be scheduled four prophylaxis patients and three Registered Dental Hygienist (RGH) prophylaxis patients was not granted; and 2. Complainant was subjected to a hostile work environment that included the denial of reasonable accommodation referenced above and further included the following allegations: a. On July 11, 2018, Complainant’s supervisor (S1) treated Complainant differently due to a reasonable accommodation request, to sign out her own hand pieces on the accountability sheet; b. On July 19, 2018, S1 questioned Complainant regarding her disabilities during a pre-action investigation meeting; c. On August 20, 2018, S1 issued a letter of proposed suspension to Complainant; d. On September 6, 2018, the Lieutenant Commander issued a 10-day suspension to Complainant; e. On September 17, 2018, the Lieutenant Commander, in the presence of Complainant's supervisor (S2), told Complainant that he felt her mistakes were due to her anxiety; and f. From June 2018 through September 2018, the Sterilization Processing Technician intentionally placed items in Complainant's cassettes and then falsely accused Complainant of leaving the items in her cassettes. Following an investigation, Complainant requested a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). The AJ assigned to the matter issued a summary judgment decision finding that Complainant was not subjected to discrimination or reprisal as alleged. The Agency subsequently issued a final order fully adopting the AJ’s decision. In the appellate decision, the Commission affirmed the final order. In her request for reconsideration, Complainant expresses her disagreement with the previous decision and reiterates arguments previously made on appeal. 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. 2020003564 remains the Commission's decision. There is no further right of administrative appeal on the decision of the Commission on this request. 2022000819 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 March 8, 2022 Date