[Redacted], Augustine P., 1 Complainant,v.Lloyd J. Austin III, Secretary, Department of Defense, (Defense Intelligence Agency) Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Mar 13, 2023

Appeal No. 2022004353 (E.E.O.C. Mar. 13, 2023)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Augustine P.,1 Complainant, v. Lloyd J. Austin III, Secretary, Department of Defense, (Defense Intelligence Agency) Agency. Request No. 2023000431 Appeal No. 2022004353 Hearing No. 510-2020-00047X Agency No.DIA-2019-00028 DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION Complainant timely requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) reconsider its decision in EEOC Appeal No. 2022004353 (September 27, 2022). 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 for the Agency as an Intelligence Officer in Tampa, Florida. 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 2023000431 On May 7, 2019, Complainant filed a formal complaint, claiming unlawful employment discrimination based on disability and in reprisal for prior protected activity. Complainant claimed that from August 2018 through March 2019, his first-line supervisor did not respond to Complainant’s request for 2018-2019 annual performance objectives, and meaningful relevant duty assignments; in March 2019, he learned that Agency personnel contacted leadership and indicated that Complainant’s writing and analytical abilities were “subpar,” or words to that effect; in May 2019, he learned that Agency personnel made disparaging remarks about hm in 2016; and on July 7, 2019, he learned that someone told his supervisor, “try not to fix him,” referring to Complainant. Following an investigation into the complaint, Complainant requested a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). The assigned AJ issued a summary judgment decision, finding no discrimination or unlawful retaliation was established. The Agency issued a final order adopting the AJ’s summary judgment decision finding no discrimination. Complainant appealed. In EEOC Appeal No. 2022004353, the Commission affirmed the Agency’s final order adopting the AJ’s summary judgment decision. In the instant request, we have reviewed Complainant’s numerous arguments and determine that such arguments do not affect the disposition of Complainant’s case as decided in our prior decision. A request for reconsideration is not a second appeal to the Commission. Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive for 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 (EEO MD-110), Chap. 9 § VI.A (Aug. 5, 2015); see, e.g., Lopez v. Dep't of Agric., EEOC Request No. 0520070736 (Aug. 20, 2007). 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. 2022004353 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. 3 2023000431 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 March 13, 2023 Date