Ron W.,1 Complainant,v.Richard V. Spencer, Secretary, Department of the Navy, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Sep 11, 2020

2020002525 (E.E.O.C. Sep. 11, 2020)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013

Ron W.,1
Complainant,

v.

Richard V. Spencer,
Secretary,
Department of the Navy,
Agency.

Request No. 2020002525

Appeal No. 2019000836

Hearing No. 570-2014-00022X

Agency No. 12-69207-07155

DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

Complainant timely requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or
Commission) reconsider its decision in EEOC Appeal No. 2019000836 (January 15, 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).

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.

In his request, Complainant states he does not understand the use of the pseudonym because it has
not been associated with his case before and he has never used this pseudonym. The pseudonyms
used in our decisions are randomly generated by EEOC when an appeal is filed are used only when
the decision is publicized.
2020002525

2
Complainant was employed by the Agency as a Human Resources Assistant, GS-7, at the Human
Resources Center in Silverdale, Washington. Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging he was
discriminated against on the bases of race (African American), sex (male), disability, and reprisal
when:

1. On November 28, 2011, during a performance discussion, Complainant was given a Letter
of Caution;
2. On February 16, 2012, during a performance discussion, Complainant’s supervisor told
Complainant that he needed to be nice to her;
3. On February 21, 2012, during a performance discussion, Complainant was given a Letter
of Caution;
4. On April 13, 2012, Complainant was required to fill out additional paperwork showing his
rating of applicants and their qualifications for positions, as well as having his work quality
checked;
5. From November 2011 through July 2012, Complainant’s workload reports for his
production were incorrect, and his timeliness standard was reduced from 5 days to 2 days
because of the review his work was undergoing;
6. On July 31, 2012, Complainant was loaned out to another section by his supervisor;
7. A case file review checklist dated July 31, 2012, was altered without Complainant’s
knowledge, making his final score lower than originally rated;
8. On September 11, 2012, Complainant’s request for reasonable accommodation was denied;
9. On September 14, 2012, Complainant had not been reassigned to a new station and a new
supervisor as was discussed on August 22, 2012; and
10. On September 14, 2012, Complainant was assigned to a new section, however, he
continued to receive work from his previous supervisor.

Our prior appellate decision affirmed the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Administrative Judge’s (AJ) decision by summary judgment which found in favor of the Agency,
concluding Complainant failed to prove his discrimination claims. In her decision, the AJ found
that nothing in the record demonstrated that the Agency’s reasons for its actions were a pretext for
discrimination. The AJ found the evidence showed that Complainant made errors in his work and
that Complainant even agreed that he made mistakes. The AJ noted there was nothing in the record
to support Complainant’s claim that his timeliness standard was reduced from 5 days to 2 days.
The AJ further determined that Complainant was assigned work from another team because there
was not enough work to support Complainant’s position. As to Complainant’s reasonable
accommodation claim, the AJ noted that Complainant requested that his work load be reduced and
that the Agency is not required to lower its production standards either qualitatively or
quantitatively as a reasonable accommodation. Finally, the AJ found no evidence to support
Complainant’s harassment claim.

2020002525

3
In his request for reconsideration,2 Complainant expresses his disagreement with the previous
decision, submits additional documents and addresses his claims of discrimination. Complainant
further argues that there was bias against him because of his brother’s EEO case. 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. 2019000836 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.

2 In response to the request, the Agency repeats its arguments made below, that the initial appeal
was untimely filed. However, at this juncture, we see no need to visit that contention.
2020002525

4
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 11, 2020
Date