Mari R.,1 Complainant,v.Richard V. Spencer, Secretary, Department of the Navy, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Jan 25, 2018

0520180045 (E.E.O.C. Jan. 25, 2018)

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

Mari R.,1
Complainant,

v.

Richard V. Spencer,
Secretary,
Department of the Navy,
Agency.

Request No. 0520180045

Appeal No. 0120172772

Hearing No. 430-2015-00126X

Agency No. DON-14-62381-01652

DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

Complainant timely requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or
Commission) reconsider its decision in Mari R. v. Dep’t of the Navy, EEOC Appeal No.
0120172772 (Oct. 3, 2017). 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).

On July 8, 2014, Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging that the Agency subjected her to
discrimination based on sex (female) when she was not selected for a temporary or permanent
position of Supply Officer after being rated and ranked “best qualified” for Supply Officer
(SUPPO), POA No. 13-801-01MP from October 10, 2013 to October 4, 2014.

Following an investigation, Complainant requested a hearing. The EEOC Administrative Judge
(AJ) assigned to the matter granted the Agency’s motion and issued a summary judgment

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.
0520180045

2
decision. In so doing, the AJ adopted the Agency’s statement of undisputed facts in their entirety
and found that Complainant had not been subjected to discrimination. The Agency did not issue
a final order, and the AJ’s decision became the Agency’s final action.

Complainant filed an appeal and, in Mari R. v. Dep’t of the Navy, EEOC Appeal No.
0120122772 (Oct. 3, 2017), the Commission affirmed the Agency’s final action. Therein, the
Commission determined that the Agency had articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons
for its actions and that Complainant failed to show that those reasons were pretextual. As a
result, the Commission found that Complainant had not been subjected to discrimination as
alleged.

In her request for reconsideration, Complainant, through her attorney, expresses her
disagreement with the previous decision and reiterates arguments previously made on appeal. In
particular, Complainant contends that the AJ’s decision contained no analysis or application of
law and merely adopted the Agency’s statement of facts from its motion for summary judgment.
Additionally, Complainant argues that the AJ’s decision was deficient and contained no
supporting rationale to support the conclusion that the Agency did not discriminate against her.
Complainant requests that the Commission grant her request.

The Commission finds that the arguments raised by Complainant in the instant request were
largely raised in her previous appeal, fully considered, and rejected. While Complainant
contends that the AJ’s decision was deficient based upon her adoption of the Agency’s statement
of undisputed facts, Complainant has not presented any persuasive arguments demonstrating that
the AJ erred in finding that Complainant failed to set forth sufficient facts showing that there was
a genuine issue still in dispute. Further, despite Complainant’s argument that the AJ’s decision
lacked adequate legal analysis, the Commission finds that the AJ’s decision appropriately
indicated that the record was fully developed, that she considered all of the record evidence in
the light most favorable to Complainant, and that the evidence established that Complainant
failed to show that she was subjected to discrimination as alleged. Complainant has not
presented any evidence demonstrating that the Commission erred in finding that the AJ properly
granted summary judgment in this matter. Moreover, the Commission finds that Complainant
has not presented any evidence to support reconsideration of the Commission’s finding that she
failed to show that she was subjected to discrimination.

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), at 9-18 (Aug. 5, 2015); 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. Here,
Complainant has not put forth any persuasive arguments to support granting the request for
reconsideration.

0520180045

3
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. 0120172772 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. 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 25, 2018
Date