0520140281
10-27-2014
Complainant, v. Ray Mabus, Secretary, Department of the Navy, Agency.
Complainant,
v.
Ray Mabus,
Secretary,
Department of the Navy,
Agency.
Request No. 0520140281
Appeal No. 0120113333
Agency No. 116309300240
DENIAL
Complainant timely requested reconsideration of the decision in Complainant v. Department of the Navy, EEOC Appeal No. 0120113333 (February 27, 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).
The previous decision affirmed the Agency's dismissal of claims (2), (3), (4) and (6), reversing the Agency's dismissal of claims (1) and (5). The decision remained claims (1) and (5) back to the Agency for processing. Specifically, the decision reasoned that with respect to both claims (1) and (5), Complainant had in fact alleged a harm or loss to a term, condition, or privilege of employment for which there is a remedy. In the request, Complainant contends, in pertinent part, that the Commission's decision involves a clearly erroneous interpretation of material fact or law. Complainant, for example, argues that the Commission erred in affirming the Agency's dismissal of claim (4) that on November 16, 2010, Complainant alleges she received a threatening retaliatory electronic mail message from the National Aviation Technical Training Center (NATTC) XO in response to a grievance she filed with CNATT on November 4, 2010. The email at issue read:
"It is your inalienable legal right to pursue administrative grievances and/or EEO complaints as you deem necessary. It is not my intention or purpose in any way to dissuade you from utilizing either process but to remind you that complaints need to be properly filed through your chain of command."
Complainant contends that in claim (4) she did state a cognizable claim of discrimination and that she showed she was aggrieved by this action. Complainant argues that any reasonable person would have seen the email as another threat by the Agency, and that it was absolutely likely to deter her and/or others from engaging in protected activity.
Because Complainant has not put forth any arguments which the Commission finds to be material to the outcome of the underlying decision, or that were not previously considered in rendering the underlying decision, the Commission finds that Complainant has not demonstrated that the underlying decision involved a clearly erroneous interpretation of material fact or law. Additionally, Complainant has failed to successfully argue or demonstrate that the underlying decision would have a substantial impact on the policies, practices, or operations of the Agency. 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), Ch. 9 � VII.A. (Nov. 9, 1999). A reconsideration request is an opportunity to demonstrate that the previous 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.
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. 0120113333 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 (Z0610)
If you decide to file a civil action, and if you do not have or cannot afford the services of an attorney, you may request from the Court that the Court appoint an attorney to represent you and that the Court also permit you to file the action without payment of fees, costs, or other security. See Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. � 2000e et seq.; the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 29 U.S.C. �� 791, 794(c). The grant or denial of the request is within the sole discretion of the Court. Filing a request for an attorney with the Court does not extend your time in which to file a civil action. Both the request and the civil action must be filed within the time limits as stated in the paragraph above ("Right to File a Civil Action").
FOR THE COMMISSION:
______________________________
Carlton M. Hadden, Director
Office of Federal Operations
__10/27/14________________
Date
2
0520140281
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
2
0520140281