Arturo A.,1 Complainant,v.Robert Wilkie, Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs, Agency.Download PDFEqual Employment Opportunity CommissionJun 20, 20192019002319 (E.E.O.C. Jun. 20, 2019) Copy Citation U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Arturo A.,1 Complainant, v. Robert Wilkie, Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs, Agency. Request No. 2019002319 Appeal No. 0120172010 Hearing No. 570-2016-00629X Agency No. 200403972015102698 DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION Complainant timely requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) reconsider its decision in EEOC Appeal No. 0120172010 (December 19, 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 Claims Assistant, GS-6, at the Agency’s Appeals Management Center in Washington, D.C. Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging that he was subjected to discrimination and a hostile work environment on the bases of race (African American), disability, and age when: (1) from December 8, 2014 through March 1, 2015, Complainant’s sixth level supervisor (S6) denied Complainant’s request for Advanced Leave, placed Complainant on 240 days or Leave Without Pay (LWOP), and charged Complainant with Absence Without Leave (AWOL) for eight hours; (2) on March 3, 2015, S6 failed to explain the 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. 2019002319 2 reason for denying Complainant’s request for advance leave; (3) on March 14, 2015, Complainant received notice of his move from the fifth floor to the fourth floor of the facility where Complainant continued to work in the same position performing the same duties; (4) on March 17, 2015, Complainant received notice of his AWOL status for March 6, 2015, because S6 denied Complainant’s LWOP request for that date, which was classified by the Agency as a snow day with approved unscheduled leave; and (5) on March 23, 2015, Complainant relocated to the processing center in connection with the notice referenced in claim (3). Complainant initially requested a hearing, but subsequently withdrew his request. Thereafter, the Agency issued a final Agency decision finding that Complainant failed to prove that the Agency subjected him to discrimination as alleged. Our prior decision affirmed the Agency’s decision, finding that Complainant did not demonstrate that the alleged actions rose to the level of an objectively hostile work environment. The decision noted that Complainant did not show that he was placed on AWOL. The decision also found that the Agency accommodated Complainant by granting him LWOP. In his request for reconsideration, Complainant expresses his disagreement with the previous decision, arguing that the Agency did not prove its case. As noted in the prior decision, Complainant withdrew his request for a hearing where he could have taken advantage of discovery tools permitted by 29 C.F.R. § 1614.109(d). 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. 0120172010 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. 2019002319 3 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 20, 2019 Date Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation