Beryl B.,1 Complainant,v.Ray Mabus, Secretary, Department of the Navy, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Dec 15, 2016

0520160485 (E.E.O.C. Dec. 15, 2016)

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

Beryl B.,1
Complainant,

v.

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

Request No. 0520160485

Appeal No. 0120161938

Agency No. 16-4523A-01254

DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

Complainant timely requested reconsideration of the decision in EEOC Appeal No.
0120161938 (August 4, 2016). 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 alleges that the Agency subjected her to
discrimination on the bases of race (African-American), color, and in reprisal for prior EEO
activity when: (1) on February 17, 2016, Complainant's Investigations Resolutions Directorate
(IRD) Package Docket Nos. 15-4523A-02886 and 15-4523A-03108 were sent to the Rigger
Supervisor; (2) on February 17, 2016, another employee's complaint Docket No. 15-67100-
02913 was sent to Complainant and the Rigger Supervisor; (3) on February 17, 2016, the
Rigger Supervisor's case documents, Docket No. 15-4523A-03311 were sent to Complainant;
(4) two Deputy EEO Officers (Deputy EEO Officer 1 and Deputy EEO Officer 2), the
Supervisory Program Manager, and the Commander continued to use the EEO Specialist as an

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.
0520160485

2
"agent of fear" toward Complainant; (5) the EEO Specialist, Deputy EEO Officer l, Deputy
EEO Officer 2, the Supervisory Program Manager and the Commander, continue to ignore the
Privacy Act of 1974 and share information with unauthorized individuals; and (6) on March
18, 2016, Human Resource Specialist and Human Resource Officer and Deputy EEO Officer
1, violated the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPPA) laws when a
response letter was sent to the Office of Workers' Compensation Programs (OWCP) Office.

Our previous decision affirmed the Agency’s dismissal of Claims 1 through 5 pursuant to 29
C.F.R. § 1614.107(a), since those claims related to Complainant’s dissatisfaction with the
processing of an EEO complaint about which the Agency opened an inquiry and found no
impropriety. We also affirmed the Agency’s dismissal of Claim 6, in accordance with 29
C.F.R. § 1614.107(a)(1) because Complainant failed to state a claim and was lodging a
collateral attack on the proceedings of another forum.

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. Aug. 5, 2015), at 9-18; 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 will have a substantial impact on the policies,
practices, or operations of the Agency. Complainant has not done so here. Complainant again
raises previous arguments asserting that the Privacy Act was violated. However, as noted in
the initial decision, this alleged violation falls outside the jurisdiction of the EEOC.

Accordingly, 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. 0120161938 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.

0520160485

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

December 15, 2016
Date