[Redacted], Gaye A., 1 Complainant,v.Lloyd J. Austin III, Secretary, Department of Defense (Defense Information Systems Agency), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Mar 22, 2023

Appeal No. 2021002996 (E.E.O.C. Mar. 22, 2023)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Gaye A.,1 Complainant, v. Lloyd J. Austin III, Secretary, Department of Defense (Defense Information Systems Agency), Agency. Request No. 2022005182 Appeal No. 2021002996 Hearing No. 570-2020-01069X Agency No. DOD-DISA-20-003 DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION Complainant requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) reconsider its decision in Gaye A. v. Department of Defense (Defense Information Systems Agency), EEOC Appeal No. 2021002996 (September 8, 2022). 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). 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. 2022005182 2 On November 19, 2019, Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging that the Agency discriminated against her and subjected her to a hostile work environment on the bases of race (African-American), sex (female), color (black), disability (mental and physical), age (55), and in reprisal for protected EEO activity when: 1. From February 27 through approximately May 27, 2019, Complainant’s former first and second level supervisors, the Budget Analyst (BA) and the Chief of the Financial Management Division (Chief), purposely delayed the processing of her reasonable accommodation request; 2. From February 27 through July 2, 2019, the BA and the Chief and the Human Resources Field Advisor (FA) purposely delayed the processing of her Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) request; 3. On or about March 21, 2019, the Chief denied her request to attend the annual American Society of Military Comptrollers (ASMC) Professional Development Institute (PDI) training; 4. On May 21, 2019, the BA, the Chief, and the FA issued Complainant a Letter of Counseling regarding time and attendance (Absent Without Leave); 5. On August 20, 2019, she was denied due process when the Budget Executive Division Chief (DC) reported her to the Pentagon Force Protection Agency (PFPA) based solely on a false allegation made by one of her coworkers; 6. On or about September 13, 2019, her former first-level supervisor, the BA, filed a harassment complaint against her; 7. On September 25, 2019, her current first-level supervisor, the Acting Chief Budget Execution (AC) issued her a No Contact Order that placed her on full-time telework until further notice; 8. On or about November 2019, the AC and the Director of Office of General Fund Budget and Execution (Director) denied her request for an “FM STARs” detail scheduled to begin November 25, 2019; and 9. On or about November 2019, her first-level supervisor, the AC tasked her to work with the “CFG2 FM Reviewer and Certifier staff and [Joint Service Provider] JSP contractor POC” even though interacting with the staff members would place her in violation of the No Contact Order. Our prior appellate decision affirmed the Agency’s final decision affirming the dismissal of claims 1-5 as discrete acts of discrimination. Our decision also found claims 6 and 7 were properly before the Commission. 2022005182 3 We found assuming arguendo that Complainant could establish a prima facie case of discrimination, the Agency articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions and that Complainant did not establish that the Agency’s reasons were a pretext for discrimination. Further, we affirmed the Agency’s finding that Complainant did not establish that she was subjected to a hostile work environment because there was no evidence that any of the alleged incidents of harassment were due to her protected bases. In her request, Complainant provides no evidence to warrant granting her request. 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. 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. 2021002996 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. 2022005182 4 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 March 22, 2023 Date