U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Margeret M,1
Complainant,
v.
David Bernhart,
Acting Secretary,
Department of the Interior
(National Park Service),
Agency.
Request No. 2019002673
Appeal No. 0120171684
Hearing No. 520-2012-00267X
Agency No. NPS100191
DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
Complainant timely requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or
Commission) reconsider its decision in EEOC Appeal No. 0120171684 (December 18, 2018).
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 Supervisory Facility Operations Specialist, GS-13, at the Agency’s
Gateway National Recreation Area, Fort Wadsworth, Staten Island, New York.
Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging that she was discriminated against on the basis of
sex (female) when: (1) (a) on August 24, 2009, and January 19, 20, and 22, 2010, a manager
interfered with or undermined Complainant’s supervisory authority and responsibilities; (b)
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.
20190026732
Complainant’s work products received more scrutiny as compared to male counterparts; (c) on
November 1, 2009, Complainant was issued a low work performance rating as compared to male
counterparts; and (d) on January 4, 2010, the Agency issued Complainant a 5-day proposed
suspension letter. Complainant also raised a claim of reprisal when, on August 23, 2010, a
manager attempted to discuss matters related to her previously filed EEO complaint.
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 his decision, the AJ found
that Complainant failed to produce evidence that the Agency’s reasons for its actions were a
pretext for sex discrimination.
In her request for reconsideration, Complainant expresses her disagreement with the previous
decision with a recitation of arguments she made, or could have made, during the original appeal.
Complainant now claims she was entitled to more discovery prior to the AJ’s granting of
summary judgment. However, beyond her bare assertion, Complainant does not support her
claim that additional discovery would have altered the outcome of this case. Complainant claims
error when the AJ made a decision on the merits following a determination, pursuant to 29
C.F.R. § 1614.109(g), that there were no genuine issues of material fact that required a hearing.
To successfully oppose a decision by summary judgment, a complainant must identify, with
specificity, facts in dispute either within the record or by producing further supporting evidence,
and must further establish that such facts are material under applicable law. While Complainant
has, in a very general sense, asserted that facts are in dispute, she has failed to point with any
specificity to particular evidence in the investigative file or other evidence of record that
indicates such a dispute. In addition, Complainant alleges that the AJ, in making a decision by
summary judgment, did not draw all reasonable inferences in her favor. However, again
Complainant fails to point to concrete examples sufficient to justify reconsideration. Finally,
while claiming certain legal “principles” should have governed the AJ’s analysis of her claims,
she also has not demonstrated erroneous interpretations of material fact of law by the AJ or the
subsequent appellate decision upholding the AJ.
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. 0120171684 remains the
Commission's decision. There is no further right of administrative appeal on the decision of the
Commission on this request.
20190026733
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 27, 2019
Date
