[Redacted], Madelaine E., 1 Complainant,v.Lloyd J. Austin III, Secretary, Department of Defense (Defense Intelligence Agency), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Jun 30, 2021

Appeal No. 2020002598 (E.E.O.C. Jun. 30, 2021)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Madelaine E.,1 Complainant, v. Lloyd J. Austin III, Secretary, Department of Defense (Defense Intelligence Agency), Agency. Request No. 2021002768 Appeal No. 2020002598 Hearing No. 570-2018-00836X Agency No. DIA-2017-00082 DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION Complainant timely requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) reconsider its decision in EEOC Appeal No. 2020002598 (March 29, 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). Complainant was employed by the Agency as a Defense Intelligence Analysis Program Analyst, GS-12, at the Agency’s Analytic Development Office in Washington, D.C. Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging discrimination on the basis of race (Black), sex (female), and disability. Complainant’s first claim alleged she was subjected to a hostile work environment, identifying 34 supporting incidents. The incidents included, but were not limited to, being counseled, leave 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. 2021002768 2 issues on various dates, her performance evaluation, telework, duties, her work schedule and other time and attendance matters, comments made to her, training, actions of various people, issues related to a suspension, reasonable accommodation, the fitness program, denial of her request to move out of her program, work assignments and duties, and being reprimanded. Complainant raised 18 other individual claims of disparate treatment discrimination encompassing many of the allegations also supporting her harassment claim. They included, but were not limited to, her assignments and duties, a notice of proposed suspension for which she later received an unfavorable decision, being counseled, being reprimanded and having her character attacked, being told she was using a lot of leave, being told she would not work her alternate work schedule, being denied an opportunity to support the Agency during a foreign delegation visit, denial of training, a second suspension, denial of her request to move to another office, issues with her work schedule, leave issues, and having her reasonable accommodation request denied. Our 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 her discrimination claims. In the decision, the AJ found that Complainant failed to produce evidence that the Agency management’s reasons for the disputed actions were a pretext for discrimination. The AJ determined that Complainant failed to show how the Agency’s actions were connected in any way to her race, sex or disability. The AJ further concluded that Complainant did not show that the accommodations2 granted by management did not effectively accommodate her disability. In her request for reconsideration, Complainant expresses her disagreement with the previous decision. She submits a doctor’s statement from 2017, 2018 emails, and a 2017 application for the voluntary leave transfer program. 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. 2020002598 remains the Commission's decision. There is no further right of administrative appeal on the decision of the Commission on this request. 2 Complainant requested a flexible work schedule and telework as a reasonable accommodation. Complainant was granted an alternative work (AWS-3) schedule and telework to attend medical appointments. 2021002768 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 June 30, 2021 Date