[Redacted], Stacie D., 1 Complainant,v.Lloyd J. Austin III, Secretary, Department of Defense (Department of Defense Education Activity), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Jul 22, 2021

Appeal No. 2020001287 (E.E.O.C. Jul. 22, 2021)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Stacie D.,1 Complainant, v. Lloyd J. Austin III, Secretary, Department of Defense (Department of Defense Education Activity), Agency. Request No. 2021003015 Appeal No. 2020001287 Hearing No. 570-2018-00762X Agency No. PE-FY18-002 DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION Complainant timely requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) reconsider its decision in EEOC Appeal No. 2020001287 (March 15, 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). During the relevant period, Complainant was an applicant for employment with the Agency. On November 14, 2017, Complainant filed a formal EEO complaint alleging discrimination by he Agency on the bases of her race (Black), sex (female), age (over 40), disability (vision), and 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. 2021003015 2 in reprisal for her prior EEO activity when she learned that she had not been selected for an Agency high school English teacher position on September 9, 2017, in Aomori, Japan. After its investigation into the complaint, the Agency provided Complainant with a copy of the report of investigation and notice of right to request a hearing before an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) Administrative Judge (AJ). Complainant timely requested a hearing. The Agency submitted a motion for a decision by summary judgment and the AJ offered Complainant the opportunity to engage in additional discovery, but she declined the offer. Over Complainant’s objections, the AJ granted the Agency’s motion and issued a decision by summary judgment on October 22, 2019, finding no discrimination. The Agency issued its final order adopting the AJ’s finding that Complainant failed to prove discrimination as alleged. In his decision, the AJ noted that the selecting officials explained that Complainant was scheduled for a phone interview, but a stable connection could not be established between the school in Japan and Complainant in the United States. After the aborted interview, the selecting officials declined to re-schedule Complainant’s interview because of the Agency needed to make a quick decision in light of the imminent start of the school year. However, the selecting officials still acted too late for their first pick, who had already been selected up by another school. The offer was extended to the second pick, and he accepted it. The AJ concluded that rather than evidence in support of her claims, Complainant only offered speculation and unsupported theories. For instance, Complainant asserted that the selecting officials were faking a bad phone connection, but she offered no competent evidence to support this claim. She also asserted without support that she was on an Agency-wide “do not hire” list. The AJ determined that there was no evidence that Complainant was treated less favorably than any of the other applicants. The AJ further noted that there was no evidence in the record establishing that the selecting officials even relied on the information that Complainant had been terminated during her probationary period back in 2012. Moreover, the AJ stated “though [Complainant] disagrees with the result, Complainant has offered insufficient evidence tending to demonstrate discriminatory motive. No reasonable fact finder, even when viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Complainant, could conclude that the non-selection here was discriminatory motivated.” 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. 2020001287 remains the Commission's decision. There is no further right of administrative appeal on the decision of the Commission on this request. 2021003015 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 July 22, 2021 Date