Alonso T.,1 Complainant,v.Ray Mabus, Secretary, Department of the Navy, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Mar 29, 2016

0520160063 (E.E.O.C. Mar. 29, 2016)

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

Alonso T.,1
Complainant,

v.

Ray Mabus,
Secretary,
Department of the Navy,
Agency.

Request No. 0520160063

Appeal No. 0120131966

Hearing No. 430-2009-00353X

Agency No. 08-68093-03141

DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

Complainant requested reconsideration of the decision in EEOC Appeal No. 0120131966
(September 25, 2015). 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(c).

In the underlying complaint, Complainant alleged that the Agency subjected him to
discrimination and a hostile work environment based on his national origin (Egyptian) and age
(69 and 70) when the following incidents occurred:

1. on September 27, 2007, his first line supervisor did not educate the Certified Nurse
Assistants (CNAs) on their roles and then or soon thereafter two CNAs made comments
that he was not properly trained and was unprofessional;

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.

0520160063

2
2. on September 27, 2007, a colleague assigned him to 10 days of on-site screenings while
assigning herself only three days of on-site screenings for the month of October;
3. on October 8, 2007, his first line supervisor did not respond to his request that the on-
site screenings be divided equitably between psychologists;
4. on October 16, 2007, during an unidentified incident, his first line supervisor sided
with the CNAs, making him look unprofessional to his patient;
5. on October 22, 2007, a CNA yelled at him, “We have to be professional around here”;
6. on December 6, 2007, during a staff meeting a CNA stated Complainant had made an
administrative mistake;
7. on December 7, 2007, his first line supervisor gave him a performance counseling that
threatened disciplinary action;
8. on April 25, 2008, he received an email from his first line supervisor that stated the
supervisor gave the nurse permission to inform a patient that the patient could request a
change in provider;
9. on June 6, 2008, Agency officials warned the staff that me consequences of being tardy
would result in a loss of pay while Complainant had already received a loss of pay for
approximately 4.5 hours for being tardy on April 14, 2008;
10. on June 17, 2008, the Agency interfered with his Performance Appraisal Review (PAR)
process when his first line supervisor presented him a PAR with a page of criticism that
was signed prior to Complainant's review and he refused to sign it;
11. on July 8, 2008, he received an email from the Credential Department stating his
medical privileges expired on July 9, 2008, and that he could no longer engage in
clinical activity until he provided written statements and a signature for the PAR that he
received; and
12. on July 16, 2008, OMV Medical, Inc. terminated his contract position as Psychologist
assigned to the Agency effective immediately.

At the conclusion of the investigation, the Agency provided Complainant with a copy of the
report of investigation and notice of his right to request a hearing before an Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission Administrative Judge (AJ). Complainant requested a hearing, which
the AJ denied as a sanction. In EEOC Appeal No. 0120102379 (Mar. 26, 2012), the
Commission reversed, and ordered the complaint remanded back to the appropriate EEOC
Hearings Unit. Over Complainant's objections, on remand a new AJ granted the Agency's
motion for summary judgment. The new AJ found no discrimination. The Agency issued a
final order fully implementing the AJ’s decision. Complainant appealed the Agency’s final
order. In our prior decision, the Commission affirmed the Agency’s finding of no
discrimination.

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. 0120131966 remains the
Commission's decision. There is no further right of administrative appeal on the decision of
the Commission on this request.

0520160063

3
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

March 29, 2016
Date