Zatta B.,1 Complainant,v.Admiral Michael S. Rogers, Director, National Security Agency, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionSep 15, 2016
0520160438 (E.E.O.C. Sep. 15, 2016)

0520160438

09-15-2016

Zatta B.,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

Zatta B.,1

Complainant,

v.

Admiral Michael S. Rogers,

Director,

National Security Agency,

Agency.

Request No. 0520160438

Appeal No. 0120141572

Hearing No. 531-2012-00215X

Agency No. 01017

DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

Complainant timely requested reconsideration of the decision in Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) Appeal No. 0120141572 (June 8, 2016). 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).

At the time of events giving rise to the underlying complaint, Complainant worked as a Security Officer at the Agency's Headquarters in Fort Meade, Maryland.

In August 1990, Complainant started working at the Pentagon in northern Virginia. Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging that the Agency discriminated against her on the bases of disability, sex, and age when: (1) on December 1, 2000, the Agency ordered Complainant to report to Fort Meade, rather than allow her to continue working in northern Virginia; (2) on January 18, 2011, the Agency failed to provide Complainant with a reasonable accommodation, and ordered her to report to Fort Meade; (3) on October 11, 2000, the Agency selected another employee to perform the same of similar functions that Complainant performed at the northern Virginia location; (4) the Agency subjected her to harassment following her January 2001 contact with an EEO counselor; and (5) on November 1, 2001, she was removed from the Agency. Complainant settled her disability and Title VII claims in December 2004. The settlement did not reference Complainant's age claims.

Complainant alleged the Agency breached the settlement agreement. Eventually, she appealed the matter to the Commission, and as an end result of her appeals and requests for reconsideration, it was determined that the settlement agreement did not apply to her claims of discrimination and reprisal based on age. The age-based claims were remanded for processing and were the subject of EEOC Appeal No. 0120141572, at issue herein.

Our prior appellate decision affirmed the EEOC Administrative Judge's decision by summary judgment in favor of the Agency, concluding Complainant failed to prove her age discrimination claims.

In her request for reconsideration, Complainant expresses her disagreement with the previous decision, references an October 9, 2003, Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) decision,2 and presents some of the same arguments she raised in her original appeal. 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. 0120141572 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

September 15, 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 The MSPB decision involved a decision by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and found that Complainant proved that "she was not able to render useful and efficient service in her former position of Security Information Administrator and she was not qualified for reassignment to an existing position with NSA at the same grade or level." OPM was ordered to grant her disability retirement.

---------------

------------------------------------------------------------

---------------

------------------------------------------------------------

2

0520160438

2

0520160438