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

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

May 20, 2021

Appeal No. 2019004364 (E.E.O.C. May. 20, 2021)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Simonne J.,1 Complainant, v. John P. Roth, Acting Secretary, Department of the Air Force, Agency. Request No. 2021001919 Appeal No. 2019004364 Agency No. 8Z0J15008F19 DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION Complainant timely requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) reconsider its decision in Simonne J. v. Dep’t of the Air Force, EEOC Appeal No. 2019004364 (Dec. 31, 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 Environmental Engineer, GS-819-13, at the Air Force Civil Engineering Center located at the Joint Base in San Antonio-Lackland, Texas. Complainant was initially hired as an onsite contractor and became a federal employee in May 2013. On June 3, 2019, Complainant filed a formal EEO complaint claiming that the Agency discriminated against her when it did not select her for the Environmental Engineer position, advertised under Vacancy Announcement No. 8Z-AFPC-1227702-184770-JLD.2 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. 2021001919 2 The Agency issued a final decision on May 16, 2019, finding no discrimination.3 In EEOC Appeal No. 2019004364, the Commission determined that Complainant had not proven that she was discriminated against as alleged when she was not selected for the position at issue. The decision noted that the Selecting Official (SO) based his decision to choose the Selectee based on the recommendations by the three-member interview panel. The decision further noted that the SO developed the interview questions which were approved by Human Resources and all candidates were asked the same questions. We acknowledge that one panel member disputed the SO’s assertion that the panel unanimously selected the Selectee. However, the decision indicated that all three panel members rated the Selectee with the most interview points. The decision acknowledged that SO’s decision to consider supervisory experience and military education for a position that was non-supervisory as well as a civilian position did not correlate with the Knowledge, Skills, and Abilities outlined in the position description. However, the Commission determined that Human Resources approved the screening criteria the panel used, which was a fairly standard process, and there was no evidence of discriminatory animus on SO’s part to include this criteria. The decision also found that the scoring sheet, which stated “must have at least 1 yr EX w/in the last 12 years,” was not discriminatory because it allowed the panel to consider experience which occurred more than twelve years ago as long as the candidate had at least one year of experience within the past twelve years. The decision further determined that Complainant was not plainly supervisor to the Selectee. The decision noted that Complainant did not provide specific examples in her responses to the interview questions. Moreover, Complainant’s resume failed to include specific quantifiable examples of how her work performance impacted the Agency. Finally, the decision found that the Agency’s decision not to weigh Complainant’s law degree as an equivalent to a Ph.D. was not discriminatory. The decision indicated that even if Complainant had received the additional points awarded to a candidate with a Ph.D., Complainant still would not have had enough points to close the 26-point score advantage the Selectee had over her. Therefore, the Commission found that the Agency articulated a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for Complainant’s non- selection. In the instant request for reconsideration, Complainant, through counsel, submits a statement expressing disagreement with the appellate decision and reiterates arguments previously made on appeal. However, we emphasize that a request for reconsideration is not a second appeal to the Commission. 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). 2 Our review of the record indicates that the formal complaint also included additional claims which Complainant withdrew and does not dispute in the instant request for reconsideration. 3 The record indicates that Complainant initially requested an Administrative Judge hearing but subsequently withdrew the request. 2021001919 3 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. 2019004364 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 May 20, 2021 Date