[Redacted], Tamesha C, 1 Complainant,v.Dr. Mark T. Esper, Secretary, Department of Defense, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Nov 9, 2020

Appeal No. 2019001845 (E.E.O.C. Nov. 9, 2020)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Tamesha C,1 Complainant, v. Dr. Mark T. Esper, Secretary, Department of Defense, Agency. Request No. 2020004794 Appeal No. 2019001845 Hearing Nos. 480-2017-00023XX & 480-2014-00828X Agency Nos. DON-13-DDHBAP-0001 & DON-14-DDHBAP-0001 DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION Complainant timely requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) reconsider its decision in EEOC Appeal No. 2019001845 (July 28, 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). Complainant worked as an Associate Professor at the Asia Pacific Center for Security Studies (APCSS). Complainant filed complaint 1 alleging she was discriminated against on the bases of race (Asian), sex (female) national origin (Myanmar Burmese) when, on March 18, 2013, S1, the Deputy Dean, issued her a Performance Enhancement Plan which noted shortcomings requiring later remediation. Complaint filed complaint 2, which she amended, alleging discrimination on the above bases as well as reprisal, alleging discrimination and a hostile work environment. 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. 2020004794 2 In support, Complaint made eight allegations, which included but was not limited to, not being recommended for an out-of-cycle pay raise, not being recommended for an out-of-cycle promotion, S1 issuing the “Commitment to My APCSS Ohana” document, issues with a work shop, being accused of unethical behavior, having her title omitted from the APCSS website, and her salary being discriminatorily determined. The Agency investigated the matter and thereafter Complainant requested a hearing. Our prior appellate decision affirmed the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Administrative Judge’s (AJ) bench decision following a hearing which found in favor of the Agency, concluding Complainant failed to prove her discrimination claims. Our lengthy prior decision addressed Complainant’s claims in detail and concluded there was substantial evidence in the record to support the AJ’s findings of no discrimination. The prior decision addressed Complainant’s appeal arguments. In her request for reconsideration, Complainant expresses her disagreement with the previous decision, and raises many of the same arguments that she made in her original appeal. We emphasize that a request for reconsideration is not a second appeal to the Commission. See EEO MD-110, Ch. 9, § VII.A. 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. 2019001845 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. 2020004794 3 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 November 9, 2020 Date