Breanne H.,1 Complainant,v.James N. Mattis, Secretary, Department of Defense (Defense Intelligence Agency), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Oct 4, 2018

0520180475 (E.E.O.C. Oct. 4, 2018)

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

Breanne H.,1
Complainant,

v.

James N. Mattis,
Secretary,
Department of Defense
(Defense Intelligence Agency),
Agency.

Request No. 0520180475

Appeal No. 0120160100

Hearing No. 570-2012-00977X

Agency No. DIA-2011-00046

DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

Complainant requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or
Commission) reconsider its decision in EEOC Appeal No. 0120160100 (May 31, 2018). 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).

In her underlying complaint, Complainant alleged that the Agency subjected her to unlawful
harassment and sex discrimination when: (1) from December 9, 2010, to May 13, 2011, her field
first line supervisor (S1) was hostile, demeaning, and disrespectful in his actions and speech
toward her; (2) from December 9, 2010, to May 13, 2011, S1 traveled with her male counterpart
for two intelligence collection missions, but not with her; (3) around December 2010 to January
2011, S1 pulled her from a meeting without any explanation to go to another meeting; (4) in

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.
0520180475

2
December 2010, S1 summoned her for a scheduled meeting while she was in the shower; (5) in
January 2011, S1 came very close to her desk and confronted her with an offensive fighting
stance; (6) in January 2011, after asking S1 if he would like to join her in a meeting with
Commander Joint Task Force personnel, he told her he was going to the meeting alone, which
cast her in a negative light; (7) in February 2011, she addressed concerns about S1 with her field
second line supervisor (S2), but he got mad at her and told her to deal with it; (8) in February
2011, in a meeting with S1 in his private room, he made an offensive comment, stating “why
don’t you show a little knee in your debriefings?”; (9) on or about January or February 2011, S1
denied publication of some of her intelligence reports, saying that they did not have reportable
intelligence and not allowing them to be reviewed by an analyst or the Senior Intelligence
Officer; (10), in February 2011, S1 cancelled a schedule trip because he thought she was sick;
(11) in February 2011, S1 was hostile and yelled at her in front of other colleagues regarding
issues with military personnel; (12) around February or March 2011, S1 told her to wash dishes
and wash/fold linens and towels in the day room, but did not give the same instructions to a male
colleague; (13) in March 2011, S1 did not allow her to travel alone, but in May 2011, she
discovered that S1 allowed a male coworker to travel for a debriefing alone; and (14) in March
2011, S1 counseled her that analysts cannot be sources and that you cannot talk to them and
dropped her sources and recalled associate reports, then in May 2011, her successor field second
line supervisor asserted that Department of Defense analysts are legitimate sources.

Complainant also alleged that the Agency subjected her to unlawful sex and reprisal
discrimination, and harassment, when: (15) in March 2011, S1 treated male colleagues more
favorably with his demeanor and speech, regularly went to the gym with them and had secret
side conversations with a male collector; (16) in March 2011, S1 intrusively inquired about the
nature of a doctor’s visit which was intimidating and inappropriate; (17) on March 15, 2011, S1
intimidated and demeaned her by having her repeat back to him “10” in four different languages
as a limit of reports you can generate from some documents; (18) on March 29, 2011, she was
told that she could not complete certain reporting and S1 had another collector complete the
reporting; (19) in April 2011, S1 did not allow her to travel to Kabul to pick him up and stop by
the International Security Assistance Force bazaar, but two male colleagues did so; (20) on April
21, 2011, she was directed by her third line supervisor (S3) to move to Kabul with a job chance
with only one week’s notice and no explanation; (21) in May 2011, due to being moved to
Kabul, she missed two range dates in Bagram and she was not given the opportunity to go to the
range with her colleagues to zero her weapon; (22) on May 10, 2011, after a visit to Bagram and
an uncomfortable interaction with S1 in which he was hostile to her, she discussed her
discomfort with S3 but no effort was made to address S1’s behavior; (23) on May 12, 2011, she
was “inhumanely” kicked out of the country by S3, with no explanation, informed that the action
was taken under direct orders, and that she only had one hour to pack her belongings, and that
she was denied access to government computers/e-mail and escorted out of the country; (24) on
May 13, 2011, her home based second line supervisor (HBS2) located in the United States
informed her that she needed to return to the United States for her safety and the safety of others;
(25) on May 13, 2011, she was escorted to the airport and was told she would be escorted to
Dulles airport where there would be persons awaiting her arrival; (26) on May 16, 2011, HBS2
told her that there were allegations against her made by personnel at the deployment site which
0520180475

3
were never mentioned to her during deployment and these allegations damaged her reputation;
(27) in June 2011, due to her deployment being cut short, she lost deployment pay, did not
receive deployment awards or evaluations, and was denied leave en route by HBS2; and (28) in
June 2011, HBS2 intimidated her and insisted that she should not be a collector and she was
moved to another branch and denied software access.

Following an investigation, Complainant requested a hearing before an Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission Administrative Judge (AJ). The AJ assigned to the case determined
that after viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to Complainant, a decision without a
hearing was appropriate as there were no genuine issues of material fact in dispute. The AJ
subsequently issued a decision finding no discrimination. In its final order, the Agency adopted
the AJ’s finding, and on appeal, the Commission affirmed the Agency’s final order. Specifically,
we found that the AJ properly issued a decision without a hearing, and that Complainant failed to
establish that she was subjected to discrimination or harassment as alleged.

In her request for reconsideration, Complainant again argues that the AJ erred in issuing a
decision without a hearing, and reiterates her contention that she was subjected to unlawful
discrimination and harassment. We find, however, that after reviewing the previous decision and
the entire record, 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. 0120160100
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.
0520180475

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

October 4, 2018
Date