Issac K.,1 Complainant,v.Dr. Mark T. Esper, Secretary, Department of the Army, Agency.Download PDFEqual Employment Opportunity CommissionJun 4, 20192019002213 (E.E.O.C. Jun. 4, 2019) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation