Joannie V.,1 Complainant,v.Dr. Heather A. Wilson, Secretary, Department of the Air Force, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Apr 26, 2019

2019001418 (E.E.O.C. Apr. 26, 2019)

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

Joannie V.,1
Complainant,

v.

Dr. Heather A. Wilson,
Secretary,
Department of the Air Force,
Agency.

Request No. 2019001418

Appeal No. 0120182807

Agency No. 9B1C1800554

DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

Complainant timely requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or
Commission) reconsider its decision in Joannie V. v. Dep’t of the Air Force, EEOC Appeal No.
0120182807 (Nov. 20, 2018). 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 alleged that the Agency subjected her to discrimination
and a hostile work environment based on race (Hispanic), national origin (Puerto Rican), color
(not specified), and in reprisal for prior protected EEO activity when: (1) On April 16, 2018,
Complainant’s supervisor (S1) told a co-worker, TH, that Complainant told her (S1) that TH
threatened Complainant. Complainant further contends that this action led to Complainant being
informed that she was the subject of an informal EEO complaint; (2) On October 2017,
Complainant informed her former supervisor, FS, that TH was “picking on” her about what time
she clocked in to work.

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.
2019001418

2
Complainant further contends that this action led to Complainant being informed that she was the
subject of an informal EEO complaint; (3) On June 16, 2017, Complainant informed FS that an
Agency official, TM, treats TH more favorably by communicating and socializing with TH
because they are both black; and (4) On April 17 and 19, 2018, S1 informed Complainant that
pending guidance from the Agency's Civilian Personnel Advisory Center, disciplinary action
against Complainant was forthcoming.

The Agency dismissed claims (1) – (3) for failure to state a claim pursuant to 29 C.F.R.
§1614.107(a)(1). The Agency determined that Complainant failed to demonstrate that she suffered
any harm with respect to the terms, conditions and privileges of her employment. Alternatively,
the Agency found that Complainant did not timely contact an EEO Counselor regarding claims (1)
– (3). In addition, the Agency dismissed the proposed discipline in claim (4) pursuant to 29 C.F.R.
§1614.107(a)(5), finding that Complainant had not been subjected to any discipline. In our
appellate decision, we affirmed the Agency’s dismissal decision.

In her reconsideration request, Complainant expresses her disagreement with the appellate
decision and reiterates many 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).
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. 0120182807 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.

2019001418

3
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

April 26, 2019
Date