EEOC Appeal 2026002813

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Sector
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Doloris W.,1
Complainant,
v.
Hung Cao,
Acting Secretary,
Department of the Navy,
Agency.
Request No. 2026002813
Appeal No. 2025003718
Agency No. DON (MC) 24-00027-00583
DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
Both 	Complainant 	and 	the 	Agency 	requested 	that 	the 	Equal 	Employment
Opportunity 	Commission 	(EEOC 	or 	Commission) 	reconsider 	its 	decision 	in
Doloris W. v. Dep’t of the Navy, EEOC Appeal No. 2025003718 (May 7, 2026).
For the following reasons, the Commission DENIES the parties’ requests.
On May 21, 2024, Complainant filed a formal EEO complaint alleging that the
Agency subjected her to discrimination and a hostile work environment on the
basis of sex (female) and in reprisal for prior EEO activity when:
a. 	On February 14, 2024, a reinvestigation into Complainant’s background
was initiated, allegedly with the intent to disqualify her from the position
for which she applied.
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.

2026002813	2
b. On 	July 	2, 	2024, Supervisory 	IT 	Specialist 	revoked 	Complainant’s
Common Access Card (CAC) certificates associated with her contract
role.
c. 	On 	July 	25, 	2024, 	Supervisory 	IT 	Specialist, 	Director, 	and 	Chief
Technology Advisor withdrew their sponsorship of Complainant’s Top
Secret security clearance. 	As a result, Complainant’s clearance status
was updated to “Loss of Jurisdiction.”
The Agency dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim. 	In the appellate
decision, the Commission affirmed the Agency’s decision dismissing claims (b)
and (c) but reversed the Agency’s dismissal of claim (a) and remanded that matter
for further processing.
In its request for reconsideration, the Agency contends that it validly dismissed
claim (a) failure to state a claim. The Agency argues that the record contains clear
evidence 	that 	it 	was 	not 	responsible 	for 	initiating 	a 	reinvestigation 	into
Complainant’s background and that the Commission lacks jurisdiction to review
the substance of clearance determinations.
In her request for reconsideration, Complainant argues that the Commission has
jurisdiction 	to 	review 	whether 	claim 	(a) 	was 	used 	as 	a 	retaliatory 	weapon.
Complainant further contends that claims (b) and (c) were part of the same
retaliatory conduct.
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).
We have reviewed the parties’ submissions in support of their requests for
reconsideration. 	We determine that there is no basis to disturb the Commission’s
prior decision. Contrary to the Agency's assertions, the prior decision is not at odds
with case precedent concerning security clearance determinations. 	The prior
decision recognizes that in the instant case, we are reviewing whether Complainant
was subjected to retaliation when the Agency initiated a reinvestigation into her
background in an attempt to disqualify her from the position for which she applied.

2026002813	3
We are not reviewing the substance of the background reinvestigation itself.
Furthermore, as mentioned in the previous decision, the Agency’s contention that it
did not initiate the reinvestigation goes to the merits of the claim. 	Claims (b) and
(c), however, involve the substance of the security clearance determination, and
not whether the process was performed in a discriminatory or retaliatory manner.
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), Chap. 9 §VI.A (Aug. 5, 2015); see, e.g., Lopez v. Dep't of Agric., EEOC
Request No. 0520070736 (Aug. 20, 2007). 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. 	Both Complainant and the
Agency have failed to do so here.
After reviewing the previous decision and the entire record, the Commission finds
that the requests fail to meet the criteria of 29 C.F.R. § 1614.405(c), and it is the
decision of the Commission to DENY the requests. The decision in EEOC Appeal
No. 2025003718 remains the Commission's decision. 	There is no further right of
administrative appeal on the decision of the Commission on this request. 	The
Agency shall comply with the Order as set forth below.
ORDER (E0224)
The Agency is ordered to process the remanded claim in accordance with 29
C.F.R. § 1614.108. The Agency shall acknowledge to the Complainant that it has
received the remanded claims within thirty (30) calendar days of the date this
decision was issued. The Agency shall issue to Complainant a copy of the
investigative file and also shall notify Complainant of the appropriate rights within
one hundred fifty (150) calendar days of the date this decision was issued, unless
the matter is otherwise resolved prior to that time. If the Complainant requests a
final decision without a hearing, the Agency shall issue a final decision within
sixty (60) days of receipt of Complainant’s request.
As 	provided 	in 	the statement 	entitled 	“Implementation 	of the Commission's
Decision,” the Agency must send to the Compliance Officer: 1) a copy of the
Agency’s letter of acknowledgment to Complainant, 2) a copy of the Agency’s
notice that transmits the investigative file and notice of rights, and 3) either a copy

2026002813	4
of the complainant’s request for a hearing, or a copy of the final agency decision
(“FAD”) if Complainant does not request a hearing.
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMISSION’S DECISION (K0719)
Under 29 C.F.R. § 1614.405(c) and §1614.502, compliance with the Commission’s
corrective action is mandatory. 	Within seven (7) calendar days of the completion
of each ordered corrective action, the Agency shall submit via the Federal Sector
EEO Portal (FedSEP) supporting documents in the digital format required by the
Commission, referencing the compliance docket number under which compliance
was being monitored. 	Once all compliance is complete, the Agency shall submit
via FedSEP a final compliance report in the digital format required by the
Commission. 	See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.403(g). 	The Agency’s final report must
contain supporting documentation when previously not uploaded, and the Agency
must send a copy of all submissions to the Complainant and his/her representative.
If the Agency does not comply with the Commission’s order, the Complainant may
petition the Commission for enforcement of the order. 	29 C.F.R. § 1614.503(a).
The Complainant also has the right to file a civil action to enforce compliance with
the Commission’s order prior to or following 	an 	administrative petition 	for
enforcement. See 29 C.F.R. §§ 1614.407, 1614.408, and 29 C.F.R. § 1614.503(g).
Alternatively, the Complainant has the right to file a civil action on the underlying
complaint in accordance with the paragraph below entitled “Right to File a Civil
Action.” 29 C.F.R. §§ 1614.407 and 1614.408. A civil action for enforcement or a
civil action on the underlying complaint is subject to the deadline stated in 42
U.S.C. 2000e-16(c) (1994 & Supp. IV 1999). 	If the Complainant files a civil
action, the administrative processing of the complaint, including any petition
for enforcement, will be terminated. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.409.
Failure by an agency to either file a compliance report or implement any of the
orders set forth in this decision, without good cause shown, may result in the
referral of this matter to the Office of Special Counsel pursuant to 29 C.F.R. §
1614.503(f) for enforcement by that agency.
COMPLAINANT’S RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (T0124)
This decision affirms the Agency’s final decision/action in part, but it also requires
the 	Agency 	to 	continue 	its 	administrative 	processing 	of 	a 	portion 	of 	your
complaint.

2026002813	5
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 on both that portion of your complaint which the Commission has
affirmed and that portion of the complaint which has been remanded for continued
administrative processing. In the alternative, you may file a civil action after one
hundred and eighty (180) calendar days of the date you filed your complaint
with the Agency, or your appeal with the Commission, until such time as the
Agency issues its final decision on your complaint. 	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 their 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. If you file a request to reconsider and also file a
civil action, filing a civil action will terminate the administrative processing of
your complaint.
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.

2026002813	6
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:
T. Gimbrere __________ 	Acting Director's signature
T. Gimbrere, Acting Director
Office of Federal Sector
September 15, 2026
Date