Arturo A.,1 Complainant,v.Robert Wilkie, Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Jun 20, 2019

2019002319 (E.E.O.C. Jun. 20, 2019)

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