[Redacted], Carletta W., 1 Complainant,v.Lloyd J. Austin, III, Secretary, Department of Defense (Defense Health Agency), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Feb 25, 2021

Appeal No. 2019005986 (E.E.O.C. Feb. 25, 2021)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Carletta W.,1 Complainant, v. Lloyd J. Austin, III, Secretary, Department of Defense (Defense Health Agency), Agency. Request No. 2021001032 Appeal No. 2019005986 Agency No. DHANCR180027 DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION Complainant timely requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) reconsider its decision in Carletta W. v. Dep’t of Def., EEOC Appeal No. 2019005986 (Aug. 26, 2020). 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). Complainant, a GS-0301-11 Human Resources Liaison at the Agency's Walter Reed Military Medical Center in Bethesda, Maryland, filed an EEO complaint alleging that she was subjected to discrimination and a hostile work environment on the bases race (African-American/Native American), sex (female), color (Black), age (62), and in reprisal for prior protected EEO activity when: 1. On September 28, 2017, Complainant’s first line supervisor issued her a Reprimand for Unprofessional Conduct; 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. 2021001032 2 2. On January 5, 2018, Complainant received an email from the Lieutenant Commander, her second-line supervisor, providing her an official notice that her detail would end effective January 8, 2018, when the detail was for 120 days (March 6, 2018); 3. On January 10, 2018, Complainant’s supervisor threatened her with Labor Management Employee Relations and reminded her that she was not a bargaining unit employee and did not have union representation; 4. On January 18, 2018, Complainant’s supervisor requested that Complainant sign a progress review for her performance plan, although Complainant had not performed in the position for 90 days, and the progress review did not acknowledge the work Complainant performed while detailed to the Assistant Chief of Staff Directorate; and 5. On January 24, 2018, Complainant’s supervisor instructed her not to communicate with the AFGE Union Official without permission from her second-line supervisor. The previous decision affirmed the Agency’s final decision finding no discrimination or hostile work environment. The Commission concluded that Complainant failed to demonstrate, beyond her bare assertions, that any of the alleged incidents were based on discriminatory or retaliatory animus. In the instant request for reconsideration, Complainant expresses her disagreement with the previous decision and requests reconsideration. The Commission emphasizes that a request for reconsideration is not a second appeal. 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. Complainant has not presented any persuasive evidence to support reconsideration of the Commission’s decision. 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. 2019005986 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. 2021001032 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 February 25, 2021 Date