Newton P.,1 Complainant,v.Richard V. Spencer, Secretary, Department of the Navy, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Apr 12, 2018

0520180161 (E.E.O.C. Apr. 12, 2018)

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

Newton P.,1
Complainant,

v.

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

Request No. 0520180161

Appeal No. 0120162769

Hearing No. 480-2015-00749X

Agency No. 15-62204-00940

DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

Complainant timely requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or
Commission) reconsider its decision in Newton P. v. Dep’t of the Navy, EEOC Appeal No.
0120162769 (Dec. 5, 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 March 4, 2015, Complainant filed a formal EEO complaint alleging that the Agency
subjected him to discrimination and a hostile work environment in reprisal for prior protected
EEO activity when, on October 14, 2014, he was terminated during his probationary period.2

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.

2 The Commission noted that Complainant did not challenge the Agency’s dismissal of two
additional claims; therefore, the Commission exercised its discretion to only review those
matters specifically raised on appeal.
0520180161

2
Following an investigation, Complainant initially requested a hearing before an EEOC
Administrative Judge; however, he later withdrew his request and the Agency issued a final
agency decision (FAD). In the FAD, the Agency determined that management had articulated
legitimate, non-retaliatory reasons for terminating Complainant. More specifically, the
Lieutenant Commander stated that he decided to terminate Complainant’s employment due to
poor workmanship, Complainant’s difficulties getting along with some of his co-workers, and his
failure to follow instructions regarding points of contact. The Agency concluded that
Complainant failed to show that these reasons were pretextual. As a result, the Agency found
that Complainant had not been subjected to reprisal as alleged. Complainant appealed and, in
Newton P. v. Dep’t of the Navy, EEOC Appeal No. 0120162769 (Dec. 5, 2017), the Commission
affirmed the FAD.

In his request for reconsideration, Complainant expresses his disagreement with the appellate
decision and makes several comments and accusations regarding the Commission’s competence.
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.
Complainant has not done so here. Complainant has presented no evidence to support
reconsideration of the Commission’s finding that he failed to show that the Agency’s actions
were motivated by retaliatory animus. As such, Complainant has not put forth any persuasive
arguments to support granting the request for reconsideration.

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. 0120162769 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.

0520180161

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

April 12, 2018
Date