0520140298
04-08-2016
Saran R.,1 Complainant, v. Admiral Michael S. Rogers, Director, National Security Agency, Agency.
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Saran R.,1
Complainant,
v.
Admiral Michael S. Rogers,
Director,
National Security Agency,
Agency.
Request No. 0520140298
Appeal No. 0120130253
Hearing No. 531-2011-00093X
Agency No. 10006
DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
Complainant requested reconsideration of the decision in EEOC Appeal No. 0120130253 (March 20, 2014). EEOC Regulations provide that the Commission may, in its discretion, grant a request to reconsider any previous Commission decision 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).
This matter initially came before the Commission when Complainant appealed the Agency's September 20, 2012, final order affirming the decision of an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Administrative Judge (AJ) finding that Complainant failed to prove discrimination based on sex when she was subjected to a series of alleged discriminatory events regarding removal, discipline, harassment, assignment, appraisal, exclusion, and denial of reassignment. On appeal, the Commission affirmed the Agency's final order.
In her request to reconsider, Complainant argues that the decision in EEOC Appeal No. 0120130253 contained erroneous interpretations of material fact because the AJ was biased, which resulted in an unfair and partial hearing and an erroneous finding on appeal that she did not prove her case under oath during the EEOC hearing and in telephonic conversations with the AJ and Agency. Complainant further argues that the decision in EEOC Appeal No. 0120130253 will have a substantial impact on the policies, practices, or operations of the Agency. Complainant outlines her belief that a series of potential outcomes, involving alleged continued discrimination among other outcomes, could result if the previous decision were allowed to remain. The Commission notes that the potential outcomes advanced by Complainant are unsupported by evidence in her request for reconsideration.
Regarding her argument that the decision in EEOC Appeal No. 0120130253 contained erroneous interpretations of material facts, Complainant merely restates the same arguments made on appeal. Complainant is reminded 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) (Aug. 5, 2015), at 9-18; see, e.g., Lopez v. Dep't of Agriculture, EEOC Request No. 0520070736 (Aug. 20, 2007). Rather, a reconsideration request is an opportunity to demonstrate that the previous decision involved a clearly erroneous interpretation of material fact or law; or (2) will have a substantial impact on the policies, practices, or operations of the Agency. Complainant has not done so here.
Further, Complainant set forth a number of allegations regarding the potential ways in which the previous decision will have a substantial impact on the policies, practices, or operations of the Agency. In order for the Commission to accept Complainant's allegations as true, it would also have to accept as true that Complainant proved her underlying discrimination claim, which we decline to do based on our previous decision.
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); thus the Commission DENIES the request. The decision in EEOC Appeal No. 0120130253 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
April 8, 2016
Date
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.
---------------
------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
------------------------------------------------------------
2
0520140298
2
0520140298