[Redacted], Brittany C., 1 Complainant,v.Alejandro N. Mayorkas, Secretary, Department of Homeland Security (U.S. Coast Guard), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Sep 29, 2021

Appeal No. 2020001321 (E.E.O.C. Sep. 29, 2021)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Brittany C.,1 Complainant, v. Alejandro N. Mayorkas, Secretary, Department of Homeland Security (U.S. Coast Guard), Agency. Request No. 2021003678 Appeal No. 2020001321 Hearing No. 430-2018-00271X Agency No. HS-USCG-00360-2018 DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION Complainant timely requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) reconsider its decision in Brittany C. v. Dep’t of Homeland Security, EEOC Appeal No. 2020001321 (June 7, 2021). 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). During the period at issue, Complainant worked as an Accountant, GS-0510-9, at the Agency’s Coast Guard Finance Center in Chesapeake, Virginia. 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. 2021003678 2 On December 5, 2017, Complainant filed a formal EEO complaint claiming that the Agency discriminated against her based on sex (female) when, on October 19, 2017, Complainant was subjected to sexual harassment. After its investigation, the Agency provided Complainant with a copy of the report of investigation and notice of right to request a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). Complainant timely requested a hearing. On October 15, 2019, the AJ issued a decision by summary judgment in favor of the Agency. Because the Agency failed to issue a final order within forty days, the AJ’s decision became the Agency’s final action. Complainant appealed. Our prior decision found that the AJ properly determined that Complainant had not been discriminated against as alleged. The prior decision explained that the record supported a finding that Complainant had been subjected to three inappropriate comments occurring during a two-hour period on the same day, by the Deputy Director. The decision further explained that assuming that Complainant had established that these actions were sufficiently severe or pervasive enough to support a sexual harassment claim, there was no basis to impute liability on the Agency. The decision determined that Agency management took immediate corrective action after the sexual harassment allegation was reported. Specifically, there was no contact between Complainant and the Deputy Director, and the November 2017 results of the investigation recommended that the Deputy Director receive a reprimand in January 2018. Because the Deputy Director announced that he would retire in December 2017, the Agency issued the Deputy Director a verbal counseling with the option for further discipline if the Deputy Director did not retire in December 2017. The Deputy Director retired in December 2017 and the Agency emailed all staff reiterating the Agency’s anti-harassment and anti- discrimination policies. Collectively, the prior decision determined the Agency’s corrective actions demonstrated no basis to impute liability on the Agency. In the instant request for reconsideration, Complainant submits, through counsel, a statement expressing disagreement with the appellate decision and reiterates arguments previously made on appeal. However, we emphasize 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), Chap. 9 § VI.A (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. 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. 2020001321 remains the Commission's decision. There is no further right of administrative appeal on the decision of the Commission on this request. 2021003678 3 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 September 29, 2021 Date