[Redacted], Logan G, 1 Complainant,v.Deb A. Haaland, Secretary, Department of the Interior (Fish and Wildlife Service), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Nov 3, 2022

Appeal No. 2022001220 (E.E.O.C. Nov. 3, 2022)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Logan G,1 Complainant, v. Deb A. Haaland, Secretary, Department of the Interior (Fish and Wildlife Service), Agency. Request No. 2022003991 Appeal No. 2022001220 Hearing No. 540-2020-00046X Agency No. DOI-APC-FWS-18-0673 DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION Complainant timely requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) reconsider its decision in EEOC Appeal No. 2022001220 (June 28, 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 Resident Agent-in-Charge, GS-14, at the Agency’s Office of Law Enforcement in Littleton, Colorado. Complainant filed a formal complaint, claiming discrimination in reprisal for prior protected activity. Complainant’s allegations included that management sent Complainant a letter he found to be threatening and harassing; management denied him the opportunity to volunteer for lateral 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. 2022003991 2 assignments; management did not return him to his previous position when he returned from active duty; his user ID and email were deleted and he was not listed as an employee in the Agency electronic systems; he was denied the opportunity to respond to or be interviewed in connection with a “PRU” investigation against him; an investigator was told not to contact Complainant for testimony in an EEO case in which he was a named responding management official; Complainant’s supervisor presented him with a Fiscal Year 2018 performance rating that was significantly downgraded from the previous 5 years; Complainant’s supervisor ordered him to travel to Price, Utah to pick up 30 eagles and deliver them to the National Eagle Repository in Commerce City, Colorado; when Complainant reported to the Regional Building, no one was there to let him in or otherwise provide him access to enter the office; Complainant’s supervisor tried to force his way into a mediation session in an attempt to intimidate Complainant; upper management determined Complainant’s Fiscal Year 2018 performance rating was flawed and needed to be elevated but, several weeks later, his supervisor had not corrected it and did not offer Complainant a performance award; Complainant’s supervisor assigned Complainant to move a vehicle and reduced his role from a GS-14 supervisor to lower level administrative tasks; Complainant’s supervisor ignored Complainant’s questions about 2 investigations assigned to Complainant, which created a hostile work environment; Complainant had daily exposure to his supervisor and was forced to report to his supervisor’s station; Complainant’s supervisor failed to return him to his position or a similar position in violation of USERRA and in reprisal for his ongoing complaints; and Complainant’s supervisor was “jerking [Complainant] back and forth” on an undercover bank assignment that Complainant contended should be performed by an administrative officer, Complainant was relegated to making minor corrections, printing, preparing documents for his supervisor’s signature, and his supervisor extended his assignment by asking unnecessary questions meant to demean Complainant by reducing him to an administrative role from a supervisor role. After an investigation, Complainant requested a hearing, and the subject complaints were consolidated. The assigned EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ) issued a decision by summary judgment concluding the evidence of record did not establish any discrimination. Thereafter, the Agency issued a final order implementing the AJ’s finding of no discrimination. Complainant appealed. In EEOC Appeal No. 2022001220, the Commission affirmed the Agency’s final order implementing the AJ’s finding of no discrimination. In the instant request for reconsideration, we have carefully reviewed Complainant’s arguments and determine that some 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 extensive 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). 2022003991 3 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. 2022001220 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 November 3, 2022 Date