[Redacted], Irwin R., 1 Complainant,v.Alejandro N. Mayorkas, Secretary, Department of Homeland Security (U.S. Secret Service), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Mar 5, 2021

Appeal No. 2020003849 (E.E.O.C. Mar. 5, 2021)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Irwin R.,1 Complainant, v. Alejandro N. Mayorkas, Secretary, Department of Homeland Security (U.S. Secret Service), Agency. Request No. 2021001363 Appeal No. 2020003849 Hearing Nos. 570-2018-01076X, 570-2019-00921X Agency Nos. HS-USSS-00774-2018, HS-USSS-01931-2018 DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION Complainant requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) reconsider its decision in Irwin R. v. Dep’t of Homeland Security, EEOC Appeal No. 2020003849 (November 4, 2020). 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). On February 15 and July 2, 2018, Complainant filed his complaints alleging that the Agency subjected him to unlawful retaliation for engaging in protected EEO activity when: 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. 2021001363 2 1. On December 17, 2017, he received a 5-day suspension dated November 27, 2017, for Discourteous Conduct Offense Code 5.9. 2. On January 14, 2018, he became aware that his duty hours were changed from 10 pm-6 am, 6 am-2 pm, and 2 pm-10 pm to 12 am-8 am, 8 am-4 pm, and 4 pm-12 am, to limit his Sunday premium and overtime pay and that he was restricted from traveling. 3. On April 20, 2018, he became aware that the Assistant Special Agent in Charge, GS- 1811-14, Obama Protection Division, certified a correction to his time and attendance record for pay period 03/2018 (February 4, 2018 - February 17, 2018), removing one quarter of an hour overtime for pay for February 6, 2018, which resulted in Complainant receiving a Notice of Intent to Offset Salary memorandum for overpayment. 4. On May 4, 2018, he became aware that the Assistant Special Agent in Charge, GS-1811- 14, Obama Protection Division, certified a correction to his time and attendance record for pay period 03/2018 (February 4, 2018 - February 17, 2018), reflecting that he was Absent Without Leave (AWOL) for failure to report to duty on February 7, 2018, which resulted in him receiving a Notice of Intent to Offset Salary memorandum for an overpayment. 5. On August 23, 2018, the Deputy Assistant Director, ES-1811-00, Office of Integrity, issued him a Suspension Decision memorandum suspending him from duty without pay for seven calendar days. Complainant requested a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). The AJ issued a decision without a hearing finding no discrimination. The Agency issued its final order implementing the AJ’s decision. Complainant appealed, and the Commission’s prior decision affirmed the Agency’s decision. In his request, Complainant provides no evidence to warrant granting his request. The Commission emphasizes 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) (Aug. 5, 2015), at 9-18; 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. 2020003849 remains the Commission's decision. There is no further right of administrative appeal on the decision of the Commission on this request. 2021001363 3 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 March 5, 2021 Date