0520120630
01-31-2013
Regina V. Taylor, Complainant, v. Ray Mabus, Secretary, Department of the Navy, Agency.
Regina V. Taylor,
Complainant,
v.
Ray Mabus,
Secretary,
Department of the Navy,
Agency.
Request No. 0520120630
Appeal No. 0120100330
Hearing No. 120-2005-00129X
Agency Nos. DON-04-63393-053, DON-05-63393-00887
DENIAL
Complainant timely requested reconsideration of the decision in Regina V. Taylor v. Department of the Navy, EEOC Appeal No. 0120100330 (July 18, 2012). 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).
In our previous decision, we affirmed the EEOC Administrative Judge's (AJ) decision, issued after a hearing, finding that it was supported by substantial evidence in the record. We noted that the Agency articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions. With respect to Complainant's claim 1, we noted that the Agency did not have a Budget Analyst, GS-12, position within the Navy Safety Center and there was no discussion about upgrading Complainant's position. With regard to claim 2, we noted that an acting supervisor felt that a statement made by Complainant was rude and insubordinate. Regarding claim 3, we noted that Complainant's supervisors were generally very direct and "to the point." With respect to claim 4, we noted that Complainant was late on at least two occasions and deadlines were extended to accommodate Complainant's tardiness. With regard to claim 5, we found no evidence that Complainant was forced to take an early retirement.
Regarding claim 6(a), we noted that a supervisor stated that he did not have first-hand knowledge about Complainant's career. With respect to claim 6(b), we noted that Complainant's supervisor was not responsible for an award that Complainant did not receive. With regard to claim 6(c), we noted that there was no evidence that either the Admiral or his secretary were aware of Complainant's retirement. We also noted that Complainant was not charged leave with respect to claim 6(d). Regarding claim 6(e), we noted that Complainant's supervisor could not attend Complainant's retirement ceremony because he was new to the position and was saving his leave for a personal affair. Lastly, with respect to claim 6(f), we noted Complainant's guests remained longer than 59 minutes and none were charged leave.
We found that Complainant failed to establish that any of the alleged actions were objectively offensive enough to rise to the level of a hostile work environment. We also found no evidence of pretext. We therefore found that the AJ's decision was supported by substantial evidence in the record.
In her request for reconsideration, Complainant makes the same arguments addressed in our previous decision. We remind Complainant 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) (rev. Nov. 9, 1999), at 9-17; see, e.g., Lopez v. Dep't of Agriculture, EEOC Request No. 0520070736 (Aug. 20, 2007). Rather, a reconsideration request is an opportunity to demonstrate that the previous decision involved a clearly erroneous interpretation of material fact or law; or (2) 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(b), and it is the decision of the Commission to DENY the request. The decision in EEOC Appeal No. 0120100330 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
January 31, 2013
Date
2
0520120630
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
2
0520120630