[Redacted], Winford M., 1 Complainant,v.Sonny Perdue, Secretary, Department of Agriculture (Animal and Plant Health Inspection Services), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Sep 10, 2020

Appeal No. 2019001560 (E.E.O.C. Sep. 10, 2020)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Winford M.,1 Complainant, v. Sonny Perdue, Secretary, Department of Agriculture (Animal and Plant Health Inspection Services), Agency. Request No. 2020002785 Appeal No. 2019001560 Agency No. APHIS-2017-00880 DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION Complainant timely requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) reconsider its decision in EEOC Appeal No. 2019001560 (January 29, 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). Complainant worked as an Information Technology Specialist at the Agency’s Marketing and Regulatory Programs Business Services in Riverdale, Maryland. Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging he was discriminated against and harassed on the basis of reprisal when: 1. On August 2, and 17, 2017, he received emails from his supervisor, which effectively removed him from the Video Teleconferencing (VTC) team and placed him on an “as needed” status on the VTC team; 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. 2020002785 2 2. On September 21, 2017, management rated him “Fully Successful” on his FY17 performance evaluation; 3. On January 24, 2018, he learned that management terminated all telework and AWS, until June 30, 2018; 4. On several dates he was subjected to various incidents of harassment, including but not limited to: a. On or about January 18, 2018, management tasked him with converting a brochure that he created into a “fact sheet” but failed to acknowledge his contributions and refused to give him credit for the work; b. Since January 25, 2018, and continuing to the present, management failed to respond to his email regarding an assigned task, which hindered his ability to effectively complete the task, and management sent him an email which contained conflicting and unclear directives; c. On January 30, 2018, management directed him to re-sign his original Performance Plan, which did not appropriately reflect his prior request to include performance standards for “Exceeds Fully Successful;” and d. On February 5, 2018, management singled him out when it scrutinized his work and shared its criticism of his work with colleagues. Our prior appellate decision affirmed the Agency’s final decision that concluded that Complainant failed to prove that the Agency subjected him to discrimination as alleged. The decision found that Complainant did not show that the proffered reasons were pretext for discrimination. The decision found that with respect to Complainant’s harassment claims, Complainant did not show that the complained of conduct was due to his protected classes. The decision also concluded that the alleged discriminatory acts, even if they occurred as alleged, were not so severe or pervasive as to rise to the level of a hostile work environment. In his request for reconsideration, Complainant expresses his disagreement with the previous decision, makes some arguments he has made previously, and submits numerous documents. We emphasize that a request for reconsideration is not a second appeal to the Commission. See EEO MD-110, Ch. 9, § VII.A. 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. 2019001560 remains the Commission's decision. There is no further right of administrative appeal on the decision of the Commission on this request. 2020002785 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 September 10, 2020 Date