Chasity C.,1 Complainant,v.James N. Mattis, Secretary, Department of Defense (Department of Defense Education Activity), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Feb 8, 2017

0120162601 (E.E.O.C. Feb. 8, 2017)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013

Chasity C.,1
Complainant,

v.

James N. Mattis,
Secretary,
Department of Defense
(Department of Defense Education Activity),
Agency.

Appeal No. 0120162601

Agency No. PEFY15046

DECISION

Complainant filed an appeal, pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.403(a), from the Agency’s July 11,
2016, final decision concerning her equal employment opportunity (EEO) complaint alleging
employment discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII),
as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. For the following reasons, the Commission AFFIRMS
the Agency’s final decision.

At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as an English
Language Arts Teacher at the Agency’s Department of Defense Education Activity facility in
Japan District, DODDDS-Pacific School System. On March 25, 2015, Complainant filed an
EEO complaint alleging that the Agency discriminated against her on the basis of race
(African-American) when, on February 11, 2015, the Agency’s Acting Human Resources
(HR) Director determined Complainant was ineligible to receive a Living Quarters Allowance
(LQA). Complainant explained that her military husband had been relocated from Japan to
New Jersey, but that she wished to remain in Japan so that her daughter could complete her
senior year in Japan rather than losing school credits if she matriculated into a New Jersey high
school.

At the conclusion of the investigation, the Agency provided Complainant with a copy of the
report of investigation and notice of her right to request a hearing before an Equal Employment

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.
0120162601

2
Opportunity Commission Administrative Judge (AJ). In accordance with Complainant’s
request for a decision in lieu of a hearing, the Agency issued a final decision pursuant to 29
C.F.R. § 1614.110(b). The decision concluded that Complainant failed to prove that the
Agency subjected her to discrimination as alleged.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

As this is an appeal from a decision issued without a hearing, pursuant to 29 C.F.R.
§ 1614.110(b), the Agency's decision is subject to de novo review by the Commission. 29
C.F.R. § 1614.405(a). See Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive for 29
C.F.R. Part 1614, at Chapter 9, § VI.A. (Aug. 5, 2015) (explaining that the de novo standard
of review “requires that the Commission examine the record without regard to the factual and
legal determinations of the previous decision maker,” and that EEOC “review the documents,
statements, and testimony of record, including any timely and relevant submissions of the
parties, and . . . issue its decision based on the Commission’s own assessment of the record
and its interpretation of the law”).

On appeal, Complainant maintains that the denial of the LQA was race-motivated because
some of her Caucasian colleagues, who are also military spouses, had been approved for LQAs
after their spouses departed the country. The Agency contends, however, that Complainant
was not eligible for the LQA, even if she was the spouse of a military employee who had been
ordered to depart the country, because, as an active duty service member herself, she had
moved to Japan as her own sponsor rather than as her husband’s dependent, and thus did not
meet the requirements of the regulation that would entitle her to either a military or civilian
quarters allowance. In contrast, Complainant’s Caucasian coworkers satisfied the criteria
because they were relocated as dependents of their sponsor spouses. In that Complainant did
not rebut the Agency’s legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for denying the LQA or offer
proof that HR Director acted on her alleged knowledge of Complainant’s race, we find that
Complainant failed to show that the Agency’s action was motivated by discrimination.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, the Agency’s final order finding no discrimination is AFFIRMED.

STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0416)

The Commission may, in its discretion, reconsider the decision in this case if the Complainant
or the Agency submits a written request containing arguments or evidence which tend to
establish that:
0120162601

3
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.
Requests to reconsider, with supporting statement or brief, must be filed with the Office of
Federal Operations (OFO) within thirty (30) calendar days of receipt of this decision or within
twenty (20) calendar days of receipt of another party’s timely request for reconsideration. See
29 C.F.R. § 1614.405; Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive for 29 C.F.R.
Part 1614 (EEO MD-110), at Chap. 9 § VII.B (Aug. 5, 2015). All requests and arguments
must be submitted to the Director, Office of Federal Operations, Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission. The requests may be submitted via regular mail to P.O. Box 77960,
Washington, DC 20013, or by certified mail to 131 M Street, NE, Washington, DC 20507. In
the absence of a legible postmark, the request to reconsider shall be deemed timely filed if it is
received by mail within five days of the expiration of the applicable filing period. See 29
C.F.R. § 1614.604. The request or opposition must also include proof of service on the other
party.

Failure to file within the time period will result in dismissal of your request for reconsideration
as untimely, unless extenuating circumstances prevented the timely filing of the request. Any
supporting documentation must be submitted with your request for reconsideration. The
Commission will consider requests for reconsideration filed after the deadline only in very
limited circumstances. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.604(c).

COMPLAINANT’S RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (S0610)

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. If you file a request to reconsider and also file a civil action, filing a civil action will
terminate the administrative processing of your complaint.

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
0120162601

4
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

February 8, 2017
Date