[Redacted], Jannet O., 1 Complainant,v.Dr. Mark T. Esper, Secretary, Department of Defense (Defense Contract Management Agency), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Jan 8, 2021

Appeal No. 2019002837 (E.E.O.C. Jan. 8, 2021)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Jannet O.,1 Complainant, v. Dr. Mark T. Esper, Secretary, Department of Defense (Defense Contract Management Agency), Agency. Request No. 2021000042 Appeal No. 2019002837 Hearing No. 520-2017-00296X Agency No. P5-16-0016 DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION Complainant timely requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) reconsider its decision in EEOC Appeal No. 2019002837 (June 30, 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). At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant was employed by the Agency as a Program Manager in Boston, Massachusetts. On January 19, 2016, Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging discrimination and harassment by the Agency on the bases of disability and reprisal for prior EEO activity when: 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. 2021000042 2 1. On September 2, 2015, the Contract Management Deputy taunted her when he came by her desk; 2. In April 2015, she accepted a position in an area with a higher cost of living to escape the hostile environment within the Agency; 3. Between March 2015 and May 2015, the Contract Management Deputy interfered with and did not support the Colonel’s attempts to find her “modest terms and assurances for retention incentives;” 4. Between November 2014 and January 2015, a Management Analyst and the Contract Management Deputy held secret meetings with her team members and other managers, and tried to find fault with numerical data in her reports; 5. Between September 2014 and October 2014, the Contract Management Deputy failed to take appropriate action when an inaccurate Program Integration Report Scorecard was submitted that delayed her application for a new job; 6. On January 20, 2012, she became aware that the Contract Management Deputy and a Management Analyst made false and malicious statements during the background investigation for her top secret security clearance; 7. On February 24, 2011, the Contract Management Deputy disclosed her medical information and interfered with her medical care when he sent coworkers to her home to escort her to a medical facility against her wishes; and 8. Around January 2010, the Contract Management Deputy and a Management Analyst discarded a Quality Assurance data management system that she developed and gave the assignment to another person. After an investigation into her EEO complaint, the Agency provided Complainant with a copy of the report of investigation and notice of her right to request a hearing before an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Administrative Judge (AJ). Complainant timely requested a hearing. However, over Complainant’s objections, the AJ granted summary judgment in the Agency’s favor on February 6, 2019. In her decision, the AJ noted that Complainant portrayed the Contract Management Deputy as a ruthless manager. However, the AJ noted that “a tough management style is not per se discriminatory. To qualify as a ‘hostile’ workplace, the Complainant must establish that the conduct of [Contract Management Deputy] was intentional, severe, recurring and/or pervasive, interfered with her ability to perform her job, and that he was motivated by discriminatory animus. This she did not do.” 2021000042 3 The AJ further noted that Complainant’s two witnesses provided “their own interactions with the Contract Management Deputy, and the Contract Management Deputy’s interactions with other employees” which were separate from and unrelated to Complainant’s claims of harassment [emphasis in its original]. Furthermore, the AJ noted that Complainant claimed that the Contract Management Deputy “dismissed her ideas but listened to her male counterparts, reassigned her database to a male colleague, and spoke ill of her multiple times. Assuming arguendo that these incidents occurred, the Complainant repeatedly argues that [Contract Management Deputy’s] actions were gender discrimination. However, gender has never been and is not at issue in this case, and therefore these arguments must fail.” In her request for reconsideration of that decision, Complainant essentially repeats the same arguments made and considered during her original appeal. We emphasize that a request for reconsideration is not a second appeal to the Commission. See EEO MD-110, Ch. 9, § VII.A. 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. 2019002837 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. 2021000042 4 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, 2021 Date