Issac K.,1 Complainant,v.Dr. Mark T. Esper, Secretary, Department of the Army, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Jun 4, 2019

2019002213 (E.E.O.C. Jun. 4, 2019)

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

Issac K.,1
Complainant,

v.

Dr. Mark T. Esper,
Secretary,
Department of the Army,
Agency.

Request No. 2019002213

Appeal No. 0120172297

Agency No. ARRIA15OCT03776

DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

Complainant timely requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or
Commission) reconsider its decision in EEOC Appeal No. 0120172297 (Dec. 14, 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).

Between December 2014 and December 2015, Complainant (Native American, vision impaired)
applied for three entry-level contract specialist positions at U.S. Army Contracting Command in
Rock Island, Illinois. For the first position, the Agency interviewed 69 applicants, but did not
select Complainant because he had not been a top performer on the interview. On the second non-
selection, the Agency declined to interview Complainant and 41 other applicants whose resumes
had been rated comparably acceptable. Out of the 172 applicants for the third vacancy, the Agency
rated Complainant’s resume as qualified for the position. However, the Agency excluded it from
those 33 referred as “best qualified.”

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.
2 20190002213

Our appellate decision affirmed the final Agency decision finding insufficient evidence of
discrimination. In requesting reconsideration, Complainant disputes the selecting official’s
integrity and her account of his interview. Additionally, Complainant asserts that the selecting
official’s chain-of- command included a Principal Assistant Responsible for Contracting who was
relieved of her authority as the result of a blunder on a major source-selection. Complainant asserts
that one selection was based on nepotism. Complainant states that the Agency’s investigative
report lacked selectees’ resumes necessary to show that they were indeed best qualified.
Complainant accuses the Agency of arbitrarily not selecting him as well as his coworkers in spite
of their relevant and recent experience as a result of working a subcontract with the Agency
through organization for the visually impaired.

Complainant presents arguments on reconsideration that fail to establish clear legal or factual error
in our prior decision. Furthermore, we find his arguments on reconsideration should have been
presented during the original appeal. EEOC emphasizes that a request for reconsideration is not a
second appeal to the Commission. EEO Management Directive for 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 at 9-18
(Aug. 5, 2015); see also , Lopez v. Dep’t of Agric., EEOC Request No. 0520070736 (Aug. 20,
2007).

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. 0120172297 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 (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.
3 20190002213

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 4, 2019
Date