0520110708
03-01-2012
Linda I. Gearhart, Complainant, v. Lt. Gen. Keith B. Alexander, Director, National Security Agency, Agency.
Linda I. Gearhart,
Complainant,
v.
Lt. Gen. Keith B. Alexander,
Director,
National Security Agency,
Agency.
Request No. 0520110708
Appeal No. 0120090474
Hearing No. 532-2007-00131X
Agency No. 06-026
DENIAL
Complainant timely requested reconsideration of the decision in Linda
I. Gearhart v. National Security Agency, EEOC Appeal No. 0120090474
(August 8, 2011). EEOC Regulations provide that the Commission may,
in its discretion, grant a request to reconsider any previous Commission
decision 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(b).
The previous decision affirmed the Agency’s implementation of the
Administrative Judge’s (AJ) decision without a hearing, in which the
AJ found that Complainant had not been discriminated against as alleged.
Complainant had claimed that the Agency discriminated against her on
the bases of sex and age when she was not promoted during the June 2006
promotion cycle, and when she was not given training and self-development
opportunities. The previous decision found that the AJ’s issuance
of a decision without a hearing was appropriate, and that the AJ’s
conclusion that Complainant had not shown her prima facie cases of sex
or age discrimination because she had not identified similarly-situated
male employees or employees not in her age group who had been treated
more favorably was supported by the record. The decision found that
Complainant had not presented evidence that her sex or age had motivated
the actions of the Agency.
In her request for reconsideration, Complainant argued that the Agency had
violated the regulations found at 29 C.F.R. § 1614.108(e) when it did
not complete the investigation into her complaint in 180 days. She also
argued that the promotion board did not operate in accordance with the
Agency’s internal regulations, and that this operated to her detriment
in the promotion process. The Agency submitted a statement in opposition
to Complainant’s request for reconsideration in which it urged the
Commission to affirm its previous decision, and argued that Complainant
had not shown that the previous decision was clearly erroneous.
We find that Complainant’s request for reconsideration fails to show
that our previous decision involved a clearly erroneous interpretation
of fact or law, or that it would have a substantial impact on the
policies, practices or operations of the Agency. Complainant advanced
the same arguments in her request for reconsideration as were advanced,
and considered, in the initial appeal. We note that a request for
reconsideration is not a second form of appeal. See, e.g., Lopez
v. Dep’t of Agriculture, EEOC Request No. 0520070736 (Aug. 20, 2007).
Complainant does not otherwise show that the previous decision was
clearly erroneous.
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(b), and it is the decision of the Commission to DENY
the request. The decision in EEOC Appeal No. 0120090474 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 (Z0610)
If you decide to file a civil action, and if you do not have or cannot
afford the services of an attorney, you may request from the Court that
the Court appoint an attorney to represent you and that the Court also
permit you to file the action without payment of fees, costs, or other
security. See Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended,
42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.; the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended,
29 U.S.C. §§ 791, 794(c). The grant or denial of the request is within
the sole discretion of the Court. Filing a request for an attorney with
the Court does not extend your time in which to file a civil action.
Both the request and the civil action must be filed within the time limits
as stated in the paragraph above (“Right to File a Civil Action”).
FOR THE COMMISSION:
______________________________
Carlton M. Hadden, Director
Office of Federal Operations
March 1, 2012
Date
2
0520110708
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
2
0520110708