[Redacted], Leslie D., 1 Complainant,v.Thomas W. Harker, (a) Department of the Navy, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Mar 2, 2021

Appeal No. 2019005962 (E.E.O.C. Mar. 2, 2021)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Leslie D.,1 Complainant, v. Thomas W. Harker, (a) Department of the Navy, Agency. Request No. 2021001120 Appeal No. 2019005962 Hearing No. 480-2016-00724X Agency No. DON 15-60530-02052 DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION Complainant timely requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) reconsider its decision in EEOC Appeal No. 2019005962 (October 13, 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 worked as a journey level Computer Scientist, DP-1550-4 at the Agency’s Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Division in China Lake, California. Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging that the Agency discriminated against her on the basis of sex(female) from 2011 - 2015 when: 1. (a) Complainant’s supervisor assigned her to perform the duties of a Chief Technologist as a DP-1550-4, which was lower graded than her male counterparts performing Chief Technologist duties at the DP-5 level and management officials have continued not to 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. 2021001120 2 promote her to the DP-5 level similar to her male counterparts, which is in line with the duties assigned. (b) Complainant received lower wages and was held to a lower grade level than her male counterparts who performed similar duties as a Chief Technologist, notwithstanding her notifying management officials of the same. Complainant also alleged she was subjected to a hostile work environment on the basis of sex (female) from 2011 through 2015 when: 2. (a) Complainant was routinely excluded from various staff meetings which were normally attended by other male employees holding similar positions within her organization by the Associate Director for China Lake. (b) Management excluded Complainant as an addressee on work-related email messages to which she should have had access and which other “T-code” supervisors have routinely received. (c) Management excluded Complainant’s name and position from organizational charts, while male employees holding similar positions were included. (d) Management assigned complainant to office space that was substandard in terms of size, location, and furnishings compared to her male counterparts who were assigned similar positions. Our lengthy prior appellate decision affirmed the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Administrative Judge’s (AJ) decision by summary judgment which found in favor of the Agency, concluding Complainant failed to prove his discrimination claims. In her decision, the AJ found that Complainant failed to establish that the Agency subjected her to discrimination based on her sex. In her request for reconsideration, Complainant expresses her disagreement with the previous decision. She makes many of the same arguments that she made during the 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. 2019005962 remains the Commission's decision. There is no further right of administrative appeal on the decision of the Commission on this request. 2021001120 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 March 2, 2021 Date