[Redacted], Cornell S., 1 Complainant,v.Thomas J. Vilsack, Secretary, Department of Agriculture (Forest Service), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Apr 26, 2022

Appeal No. 2021002119 (E.E.O.C. Apr. 26, 2022)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Cornell S.,1 Complainant, v. Thomas J. Vilsack, Secretary, Department of Agriculture (Forest Service), Agency. Request No. 2022001646 Appeal No. 2021002119 Hearing No. 430-2020-00522X Agency No. FS-2019-00210 & FS-2019-00705 DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION Complainant timely requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) reconsider its decision in EEOC Appeal No. 2021002119 (February 2, 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 as a Civil Engineering Technician/Roads, GS-9, at the Agency’s Forest Service, Region 8, Supervisor’s Office located in Asheville, North Carolina. Complainant filed two formal EEO complaints, claiming discrimination and harassment based on sex, disability, and age, and in reprisal for prior protected activity, which were consolidated for 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. 2022001646 2 processing. Complainant alleged that management denied his reasonable accommodation request and provided false and outdated information in response to the request; management denied him the opportunity to telework; management issued him a Letter of Reprimand; and he was subjected to various acts of harassment, including but not limited to, when management did not notify him of a detail opportunity for a GS-11/12 Geospatial Systems Specialist Program Management (GIS) Coordinator position located in the National Forest of North Carolina. After an investigation, Complainant requested a hearing. The assigned EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ) issued a decision by summary judgment concluding the evidence of record did not establish any discrimination, harassment, or reprisal. When the Agency did not issue a final order, the AJ’s decision became the Agency’s final decision. Complainant appealed. In EEOC Appeal No. 2021002119, the Commission affirmed the Agency’s final decision finding no discrimination, harassment, or reprisal. In the instant request for reconsideration, we have carefully reviewed Complainant’s arguments and determine that many of the matters either were raised or could have been raised below. We note that during the original appeal from the Agency’s final order, Complainant presented arguments, many of which have been replicated in the instant request. We emphasize that 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. 2021002119 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. 2022001646 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 April 26, 2022 Date