U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Gala B.,1
Complainant,
v.
Richard V. Spencer,
Secretary,
Department of the Navy,
Agency.
Request No. 2019002830
Appeal No. 0120170794
Hearing No. 510-2014-00446X
Agency No. 13-63285-02820
DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
Complainant timely requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or
Commission) reconsider its decision in EEOC Appeal No. 0120170794 (March 6, 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).
In the underlying complaint, Complainant claimed that the Agency discriminated against her based
on race, disability, sex and in reprisal for prior EEO activity. Complainant raised twenty claims
covering a period between March 2012 and February 2014. Complainant’s claims included oral
admonishments, disrespectful emails, a letter of caution, a proposed 14-day suspension,
questioning about use of an Agency vehicle to commute, improper medical questions,
reassignment to a non-supervisory position, reinspection her work revealing errors, negative
comments in her performance evaluation, and another proposed 14-day suspension.
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.
2 2019002830
The previous decision affirmed the Agency final order adopting the EEOC Administrative Judge
(AJ) finding no discrimination, concluding the evidence of record did not demonstrate that the
Agency actions were motivated by discriminatory animus. The previous decision also did not
address an additional claim regarding an October 2014 30-day suspension without pay, because
the AJ determined Complainant had improperly raised this matter for the first time during the
hearing.
In her reconsideration request, Complainant argues that the AJ’s post-hearing decision, and the
prior appellate decision, had erroneously overlooked important circumstances surrounding her
EEO complaint. Complainant stated she had received Agency accolades for her prior performances
in challenging overseas missions between 2003 and 2012. After being reassigned to the position
at issue in the Naval Criminal Investigation Service Southeast Field Office (SEFO), Complainant
accused the Agency of punishing her for health problems suffered from the deployments.
According to Complainant, SEFO supervision found deficiencies in her communications, conduct
and performance only after she had complained to headquarters managers about harassment and
discrimination at the SEFO. However, this argument was already raised and considered during
the initial appeal and during the hearing before the AJ. We note that the AJ concluded the SEFO
supervisors’ testimony was credible, while the AJ observed disparities between evidence of record
and Complainant’s version of the events during the hearing.
Therefore, after a thorough review of the record and arguments presented, we find Complainant
did not prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the alleged discrimination occurred. A
request for reconsideration is not a second chance on appeal. 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, we find that this request failed to meet
criteria of 29 C.F.R. § 1614.405(c). It is the decision of the Commission to deny it. The decision
in EEOC Appeal No. 0120170794 remains our 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.
3 2019002830
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 26, 2019
Date
