[Redacted], Ted L., 1 Complainant,v.Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General, Department of Justice (Federal Bureau of Prisons), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Apr 25, 2022

Appeal No. 2020001362 (E.E.O.C. Apr. 25, 2022)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Ted L.,1 Complainant, v. Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General, Department of Justice (Federal Bureau of Prisons), Agency. Request No. 2022001642 Appeal No. 2020001362 Hearing No. 410-2019-00348X Agency No. BOP-2018-0931 DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION Complainant requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) reconsider its decision in EEOC Appeal No. 2020001362 (March 25, 2021). 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). Complainant was employed as a Special Learning Needs Teacher, GS-11, at the Agency’s United States Penitentiary in Atlanta, Georgia. During the time period in question, he was serving in a temporary assignment as Front Lobby Officer. 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. 2022001642 2 Complainant filed a formal complaint, claiming discrimination on the bases of race (African American), religion (Muslim), and in reprisal for prior protected activity. Complainant alleged that, on four dates, his requests for religious accommodation were denied. After an investigation, Complainant requested a hearing. The assigned EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ) issued a decision by summary judgment concluding the evidence developed during the investigation into the complaint did not establish any discrimination or unlawful retaliation. With regard to his religious accommodation claim, the AJ determined Complainant established a he had a bona fide religious belief as a practicing Muslim, he informed the Agency of his belief and need for accommodation (time to engage in prayer during the workday), and the Agency did not initially provide him the accommodation. However, the AJ found that the evidence revealed the Agency did not approve Complainant’s request immediately because he failed to provide specific information needed to process his request (specifically, the times he was requesting to pray and how long the sessions would be). Notably, when Complainant provided the requested information to the Agency, it approved his request. Further, as to Complainant’s race claim, the AJ concluded there was no evidence that a similarly situated individual outside of his protected group was treated more favorably. Complainant stated others of different races have not had the same issues with similar requests, but he does not provide any information to identify similarly situated individuals. Likewise, the AJ concluded that Complainant failed to demonstrate the Agency’s failure to approve his religious accommodation request was due to his prior EEO activity. Following the AJ’s decision, the Agency issued a final order implementing the AJ’s finding of no discrimination or reprisal. Complainant appealed. In EEOC Appeal No. 2020001362, the Commission affirmed the Agency’s final order implementing the AJ’s finding of no discrimination or unlawful retaliation. In the instant request for reconsideration, we have carefully reviewed Complainant’s arguments and determine that 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 numerous 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. 2020001362 remains the 2022001642 3 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 April 25, 2022 Date