[Redacted], Mikki P., 1 Complainant,v.Carlos Del Toro, Secretary, Department of the Navy, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Feb 21, 2023

Appeal No. 2022001464 (E.E.O.C. Feb. 21, 2023)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Mikki P.,1 Complainant, v. Carlos Del Toro, Secretary, Department of the Navy, Agency. Request No. 2023000757 Appeal No. 2022001464 Hearing No. 570-2021-00998X Agency No. DON-21-00052-00057 DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION Complainant requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) reconsider its decision in Mikki P. v. Dep’t of the Navy, EEOC Appeal No. 2022001464 (Oct. 31, 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). On November 7, 2020, Complainant filed a formal EEO complaint claiming that the Agency discriminated against her and subjected her to harassment based on race, disability, and age when: 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. 2023000757 2 1. On November 4, 2020, Complainant was placed on a Performance Improvement Plan dated November 9, 2020 and signed by Complainant’s first-line supervisor (Supervisor) on November 4, 2020. 2. From May 2020 to present, Complainant was subjected to a hostile work environment by her Supervisor, as supported by the following alleged incidents: a. on November 23, 2020, Complainant’s co-worker was afforded the opportunity to receive training despite Complainant’s Supervisor having repeatedly informed Complainant that he was not going to provide training to Complainant because “[Complainant is] a GS 13 Analyst and shouldn’t need training”; b. on November 4, 2020, Complainant was given an unreasonable, last-minute work assignment by her Supervisor; c. on October 23, 2020, Complainant was denied training by her Supervisor who informed her to “go figure it out [Complainant is] a GS 13 Analyst and shouldn’t need training”; d. on September 23, 2020, Complainant received a negative mid-year performance review from her Supervisor, who threatened her during the mid-year performance review meeting that he was going to put Complainant on a PIP; and e. on May 5, 2020, Complainant’s Supervisor required Complainant to come into the office even though she previously provided medical documentation from her physician stating that Complainant was considered High-Risk and should not report to the office during the duration of the COVID-19 pandemic. Complainant requested a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). The AJ issued a decision without a hearing finding no discrimination. The AJ’s decision effectively became the final action of the Agency. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.109(i). Complainant appealed, and the Commission’s prior decision affirmed the Agency’s decision. 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. 2023000757 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. The decision in EEOC Appeal No. 2022001464 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 February 21, 2023 Date