Claude R.,1 Complainant,v.William P. Barr, Attorney General, Department of Justice (Federal Bureau of Prisons), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Jun 2, 2020

20200012027 (E.E.O.C. Jun. 2, 2020)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013

Claude R.,1
Complainant,

v.

William P. Barr,
Attorney General,
Department of Justice
(Federal Bureau of Prisons),
Agency.

Request No. 2020002027

Appeal No. 0120182645

Agency No. BOP-2015-01323

DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

Complainant timely requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or
Commission) reconsider its decision in EEOC Appeal No. 0120182645 (November 8, 2019).
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).

During the relevant time, Complainant worked as a Section Chief, GS-14, for the Agency’s
Designation and Sentence Computation Center, in Grand Prairie, Texas. Believing that he was
subjected to unlawful reprisal for prior protected EEO activity, Complainant filed an EEO
complaint on February 4, 2015. Specifically, Complainant alleged he was retaliated against when:

(1) On October 1, 2014, he was referred for an Office of Internal Affairs
investigation for unprofessional conduct;

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.
2020002027

2
(2) From October 1 through 31, 2014, a management official pressured him to hire
the official’s wife and harassment Complainant for refusing to do so; and,

(3) On January 29, 2015, the Freedom of Information Act/Privacy Act (FOIA/PA)
Section failed to response to his FOIA request, pertaining to his OIA
investigation, in a timely manner.

Following an investigation, Complainant requested a hearing before an EEOC Administrative
Judge (AJ). On May 15, 2018, the AJ issued a decision without a hearing. The AJ determined
that in each instance, there was no evidence that management’s actions were motivated by reprisal.
Complainant appealed the decision to the Commission.

In our prior decision, we found that the Agency proffered legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons
for its actions. See Complainant v. Dep’t of Justice (Bureau of Prisons), EEOC Appeal No.
0120182645 (Nov. 8, 2019). With respect to claim (1), the internal investigation was conducted as
the result of an incident between Complainant and a mailroom clerk. See id. As for claim (2),
management was unaware of the alleged harassment. See id. Finally, Complainant’s FOIA request
(claim (3)) was processed within the normal amount of time for that office. See id. In all instances,
we found no evidence that the Agency’s actions were motivated by reprisal. See id. Further,
Complainant did not establish that he engaged in prior protected EEO activity. While he relied on
the July 11, 2014 email he sent regarding the “odd and disrespectable” behavior of the mailroom
clerk, as his prior EEO activity, Complainant did not indicate any protected basis in the email. The
Agency’s finding of no discrimination was affirmed. See id.

In his request for reconsideration, Complainant contends that the Regional Office conducted the
investigation, which was against Agency policy, because he did not work in that division. Further,
Complainant attaches an August 2016 memorandum regarding his non-selection for a vacant
warden position. He argues that after he was disqualified, the Agency modified the vacancy
announcement to ensure that he would not qualify in the future.2

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. 0120182645 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.

2 Complainant’s request appears to reference events that occurred after the filing of the February
4, 2015 complaint and beyond the scope of the instant request for reconsideration.
2020002027

3
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

June 2, 2020
Date