[Redacted], Edward W., 1 Complainant,v.Thomas J. Vilsack, Secretary, Department of Agriculture (Food and Nutrition Service), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Dec 15, 2022

Appeal No. 2022002978 (E.E.O.C. Dec. 15, 2022)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Edward W.,1 Complainant, v. Thomas J. Vilsack, Secretary, Department of Agriculture (Food and Nutrition Service), Agency. Request No. 2022004026 Appeal No. 2022002978 Hearing No. 480-2019-00817X Agency No. FNCS-CF-2018-00428 DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION Complainant timely requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) reconsider its decision in EEOC Appeal No. 2022002978 (June 23, 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 period at issue, Complainant was employed by the Agency as a Management Services Specialist Team Lead at its facility located in San Francisco, California. Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging that he was subjected to discrimination and harassment based on race (Caucasian), sex (male), and reprisal (current EEO activity) when: (1) in June 2018, and other unspecified dates, he was required to attend Diversity and Inclusion events, while employees outside of his protected classes were not; 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. 2022004026 2 (2) on unspecified dates, he was assigned menial, “janitorial” tasks that were outside of his official position description; (3) on several dates, he was subjected to various acts of harassment, including but not limited to: (a) in February 2017, management and coworkers openly expressed their political views and opinions in the workplace and made disparaging remarks about President Donald Trump and his administration; (b) on February 5, 2018, he became aware that President Trump’s picture was vandalized; (c) on February 12, 2018, he learned that President Trump’s picture had been removed from the workplace and, thereafter, management delayed in taking corrective action regarding the possible theft; (d) on or after February 20, 2018, A1 disclosed his identity to management after he submitted an anonymous informal EEO complaint; and (e) in February 2018, and on other unspecified dates, management failed to address improper political conduct and harassment in the workplace. After its investigation into the complaint, the Agency provided Complainant with a copy of the report of investigation and notice of his right to request a hearing before an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) Administrative Judge (AJ). Complainant requested a hearing. The AJ informed the parties of her intent to issue a decision without a hearing and provided them with an opportunity to respond. Subsequently, the AJ issued a decision by summary judgment in favor of the Agency. The Agency issued its final order adopting the AJ’s finding that Complainant failed to prove discrimination as alleged. Complainant appealed the Agency’s final order. In EEOC Appeal No. 2022002978, our prior decision found that the AJ’s decision without a hearing was appropriate and affirmed the Agency’s final order finding no discrimination. Complainant filed the instant request for reconsideration. In his request, Complainant restates his arguments that he was subjected to discrimination and harassment as alleged. However, nothing that Complainant has submitted supports a determination that the prior decision affirming the Agency’s final order was in error. 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. 2022004026 3 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. 2022002978 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. 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 December 15, 2022 Date