Hettie T.,1 Complainant,v.Eric Fanning, Acting Secretary, Department of the Army, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Jan 8, 2016

0520150457 (E.E.O.C. Jan. 8, 2016)

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

Hettie T.,1
Complainant,

v.

Eric Fanning,
Acting Secretary,
Department of the Army,
Agency.

Request No. 0520150457

Appeal No. 0120151319

Hearing No. 430-2012-00294X

Agency No. ARCEHECSA11OCT05086

DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

Complainant timely requested reconsideration of the decision in EEOC Appeal No.
0120151319 (July 21, 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).

On January 20, 2012, Complainant filed a formal complaint alleging that the Agency subjected
her to a hostile work environment based on her religion, age, sex, and in reprisal for her prior
protected EEO activity based on numerous incidents including, inter alia, a reduction in the
length of her detail; a Letter of Reprimand; assignment of complex cases; rude and
condescending treatment by managers; questioning of Complainant's colleagues regarding her
time and travel; she was required to provide detailed information to support her overtime; she
was denied overtime; she missed facility celebrations; denied a quality step increase; and she
was subjected to suggestive remarks by her manager.

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.
0520150457

2
Following an investigation, Complainant initially requested a hearing before an Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission Administrative Judge (AJ). While the case was pending
before the AJ, Complainant filed a civil action (identified as Civil Action No. 4:14-CV-00162)
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia on December 5, 2014.
Complainant subsequently filed an amended complaint in the United States District Court
(identified as Civil Action No. 2:14-CV-00626) on January 2, 2015. The AJ then granted the
Agency’s motion to dismiss the complaint. Thereafter, the Agency issued a final order fully
implementing the AJ's decision. Complainant appealed and, in Complainant v. Dep’t of the
Army, EEOC Appeal No. 0120141319 (July 21, 2015), the Commission dismissed the appeal
pursuant to 29 C.F.R, § 1614.409 finding that Complainant’s civil action alleged a hostile
work environment by her supervisor just as claimed in the EEO complaint.

In her request for reconsideration, Complainant expresses her disagreement with the previous
decision and reiterates numerous arguments she previously raised in her appeal. For example,
Complainant again argues that her civil action only included her non-selection allegations and
not her hostile work environment claims. The Commission again notes that Complainant
alleged in her civil action that the Agency subjected her to a hostile work environment and
specifically incorporated these allegations into each “Count” of her civil complaint. 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.

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. 0120151319 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.

0520150457

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

January 8, 2016
Date