[Redacted], Kristie O., 1 Complainant,v.John P. Roth, Acting Secretary, Department of the Air Force, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Feb 2, 2021

Appeal No. 2019002756 (E.E.O.C. Feb. 2, 2021)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Kristie O.,1 Complainant, v. John P. Roth, Acting Secretary, Department of the Air Force, Agency. Request No. 2021000506 Appeal No. 2019002756 Agency No. 6R0M15011 DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION Complainant timely requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) reconsider its decision in EEOC Appeal No. 2019002756 (September 23, 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). During the period at issue, Complainant worked as an Operations Clerk at the Agency’s 94th Operations Group in Dobbins Air Force Base, Georgia. On October 21, 2015, Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging that the Agency subjected her to discrimination and harassment based on race (African-American), color (Black), disability (Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder), age, and in 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. 2021000506 2 A. from January to June 2015, she was treated harshly, disrespected, tormented and ridiculed by leadership in her organization after being selected to replace a former employee. B. (1) In November-December 2015, her second-line supervisor (S2) issued her a Notice of Proposed Reprimand for improper and unprofessional conduct; (2) in December 2015, S2 treated Complainant disrespectfully by having another staff member present when she reported to his office to discuss her response; (3) in December 2015, S2 issued her a Letter of Counseling (LOC), in lieu of the reprimand; (4) S2 rewrote Complainant’s appraisal and removed her performance award; and (5) S2 denied Complainant’s request for reasonable accommodation. C. (1) From October 2015 to April 2016, Complainant’s Common Access Card (CAC) was tampered with and bent; and (2) from October 2015 to April 2016, Complainant’s email history was deleted from her computer. After its investigation, the Agency provided Complainant with a copy of the report of investigation and notice of the right to request a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). Complainant timely requested a hearing. However, on June 13, 2018, the AJ dismissed Complainant’s hearing request finding that Complainant failed to follow the AJ’s prehearing orders and did not provide compelling or persuasive justification for her failure. The AJ remanded the complaint to the Agency for an issuance of a final decision pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.110(b). In its final decision, the Agency determined that Complainant did not establish that the Agency subjected her to discriminatory disparate treatment or a hostile work environment based on her race, color, disability, age, and in reprisal for prior EEO activity. 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. 2021000506 3 The decision in EEOC Appeal No. 2019002756 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 February 2, 2021 Date