Melina K.,1 Complainant,v.James N. Mattis, Secretary, Department of Defense (Defense Information Systems Agency), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Jan 9, 2018

0520170600 (E.E.O.C. Jan. 9, 2018)

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

Melina K.,1
Complainant,

v.

James N. Mattis,
Secretary,
Department of Defense
(Defense Information Systems Agency),
Agency.

Request No. 0520170600

Appeal No. 0120152834

Agency No. DODDISA12005

DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

Complainant requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or
Commission) reconsider its decision in EEOC Appeal No. 0120152834 (August 10, 2017).
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 her underlying complaint, as amended, Complainant alleged the Agency subjected her to
harassment on the bases of disability and in reprisal for prior protected EEO activity between
June 2011 and February 2012. Following the investigation of her complaint, the Agency notified
Complainant of her right to request a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge. When
Complainant did not request a hearing within the requisite time frame, the Agency issued a final
decision. The Agency concluded that Complainant failed to prove that she was subjected to
discrimination as alleged.

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.
0520170600

2
Complainant appealed the Agency’s final decision. In EEOC Appeal No. 0120140624 (May 21,
2015), the Commission found Complainant failed, in large part, to establish her hostile work
environment claim. However, the Commission determined that Complainant was subjected to
unlawful retaliation when:

1. She was verbally reprimanded by S1 in front of her coworkers for filing an informal
EEO complaint; and
2. She was “confronted” by S1 and S2 about filing an EEO complaint.

To remedy Complainant for the unlawful retaliation she experienced, the Commission ordered,
in part, the Agency to conduct a supplemental investigation on the issue of Complainant’s
entitlement to compensatory damages and issue a final decision on compensatory damages.

Complainant filed a request for reconsideration on that portion of the Commission’s decision
finding no discrimination. Complainant’s request was denied by the Commission in EEOC
Request No. 0520150433 (Nov. 25, 2015).

The Agency conducted a supplemental investigation into Complainant’s entitlement to
compensatory damages. The Agency issued a final decision based on the supplemental
investigation. The Agency denied Complainant’s request for compensation for loss of
opportunity to be promoted finding that such a request was too speculative. The Agency
awarded Complainant $10,000 in nonpecuniary damages. The Agency denied Complainant’s
request for pecuniary damages. Additionally, the Agency denied Complainant’s requests for fees
and costs related to the work done by her attorney regarding compensatory damages.

In EEOC Appeal No. 0120152834 (August 10, 2017), the Commission found the Agency
properly concluded that Complainant was entitled to nonpecuniary damages in the amount of
$10,000. The Commission also found the Agency’s denial of pecuniary damages was
appropriate. Further, the Commission noted Complainant’s attorney provided his request for
fees in an email in which he only provided the total amount for fees and costs without the
appropriate documentation. As such, the Commission found the Agency properly denied the
request for attorney’s fees and costs.

Thereafter, Complainant filed the subject request for reconsideration. In her request for
reconsideration, Complainant reiterates numerous arguments she previously raised alleging that
she should be awarded more nonpecuniary, compensatory damages and that she was improperly
denied attorney’s fees. 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) (Aug. 5, 2015), at 9-18; 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.

0520170600

3
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. A review of the record reveals that the Agency has complied
with the Order listed in our prior decision. Thus, we do not reiterate our prior Order. The
decision in EEOC Appeal No. 0120152834 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. 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

January 9, 2018
Date