[Redacted], Fiona A., 1 Complainant,v.Thomas W. Harker, Acting Secretary, Department of the Navy, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Jul 22, 2021

Appeal No. 2020001361 (E.E.O.C. Jul. 22, 2021)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Fiona A.,1 Complainant, v. Thomas W. Harker, Acting Secretary, Department of the Navy, Agency. Request No. 2021003001 Appeal No. 2020001361 Hearing No. 420-2019-00071X Agency No. 174308102803 DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION Complainant timely requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) reconsider its decision in EEOC Appeal No. 2020001361 (March 24, 2021). 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). During the relevant period, Complainant worked as a Transportation Assistant, GS-2102-06, at the Agency’s Personnel Support Detachment (PSD) in Pensacola, Florida. On August 11, 2017, Complainant filed a formal complaint alleging discrimination based on sex (female), and in reprisal for prior protected activity when, on June 6, 2017, her request for assistance to aid in processing 123 students by July 7, 2017, was denied. 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. 2021003001 2 After its investigation into the complaint, the Agency provided Complainant with a copy of the report of investigation and notice of right to request a hearing before an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) Administrative Judge (AJ). Complainant timely requested a hearing. After reviewing the record, as well as conducting an Initial Conference with the parties to afford them the opportunity to supplement the record, the AJ assigned to the case determined the complaint did not warrant a hearing and issued a decision by summary judgment on September 26, 2019, finding that Complainant was not subjected to discrimination or reprisal as alleged. In her decision, the AJ found that the formal complaint could be resolved without a hearing because no genuine dispute of material fact or questions of credibility existed. Following the investigation, the AJ stated even assuming Complainant established a prima facie case of discrimination, the Agency had “notified [Complainant] of the need to process the students early, provided her assistance when she needed it and did not know or believe her to be requesting direct assistance on July 26, 2017.” The AJ also determined that Complainant’s supervisors legitimately did not believe that Complainant needed support to complete the project, as reflected in a July 26, 2017 email. Complainant appealed and the prior appellate decision affirmed the AJ’s determination that Complainant did not prove her discrimination or retaliation claims. In her request for reconsideration of that decision, Complainant essentially repeats the same arguments made and considered during her original appeal. We emphasize that a request for reconsideration is not a second appeal to the Commission. 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, 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. 2020001361 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. 2021003001 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 July 22, 2021 Date