U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Alvina S.,1 Complainant, v. James N. Mattis, Secretary, Department of Defense (Defense Logistics Agency), Agency. Request No. 0520170230 Appeal No. 0120141853 Hearing No. 450-2013-00185X Agency No. DLAN130024 DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION Complainant timely requested reconsideration of the decision in EEOC Appeal No. 0120141853 (January 30, 2017). 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 Distribution Process Worker at the Agency's Distribution Center facility in Red River, Texas. Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging that the Agency discriminated against her on the bases of race (Caucasian), color (white), and sex when: (1) since June 2010 until May 18, 2012, she was sexually harassed by her Division Chief when he repeatedly contacted her requesting that she meet him off duty hours, and on one occasion in December 2010 intimidated her by coercing her into engaging in sexual relations with him; and (2) she was discriminated against based on her race, color, sex, and in retaliation for engaging in EEO activity when a Commander attempted to meet with her regarding an EEO complaint without proper representation, and when her government property and leave usage were investigated by the Office of the Inspector General. Our prior appellate decision affirmed the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Administrative Judge's (AJ's) decision by summary judgment in favor of the Agency, concluding Complainant failed to prove her discrimination claims. With regard to the sexual harassment claim, our decision correctly concluded that, even assuming the Division Chief's conduct occurred as alleged by Complainant, it was undisputed that there was no basis for imputing liability to the Agency. Complainant did not allege that the Division Chief took any tangible employment action against her, and she failed to report the harassment for almost two years. Moreover, it was undisputed that as soon as Complainant fully reported the harassment, Agency management took immediate action to prevent it from continuing. The Division Chief was ordered to have no contact with Complainant, was detailed out of his supervisory position during an investigation, and a removal action was initiated against him. He retired in lieu of removal. With regard to the Inspector General investigation, our prior decision determined that the evidence of record fully supported the AJ's determination, that during the investigation into Complainant's sexual harassment claims, management uncovered unrelated evidence of possible fraud and abuse and the matter was turned over to the Inspector General for further investigation. While a subject of the investigation, it is undisputed that Complainant suffered no adverse action as a result of the investigation and its findings. Furthermore, the Division Chief and others were also subjects of the investigation, belying any inference that the investigation was in retaliation against Complainant for reporting the sexual harassment. In her request for reconsideration, Complainant expresses her disagreement with the previous decision and presents some of the same arguments she raised on 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. 0120141853 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 25, 2017 __________________ 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 0520170230 3 0520170230