Complainant,v.Tom J. Vilsack, Secretary, Department of Agriculture (Rural Development), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Mar 25, 2015

0520150111 (E.E.O.C. Mar. 25, 2015)

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

Complainant,

v.

Tom J. Vilsack,
Secretary,
Department of Agriculture
(Rural Development),
Agency.

Request No. 0520150111

Appeal No. 0120142294

Agency No. RD-2013-00989

DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
Complainant requested reconsideration of the decision in Complainant v. Department of
Agriculture, EEOC Appeal No. 0120142294 (October 23, 2014). EEOC Regulations provide
that the Commission may, in its discretion, grant a request to reconsider any previous
Commission decision 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).
In his underlying complaint, Complainant alleged that the Agency subjected him to unlawful
discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C.
§ 2000e et seq., and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), as
amended, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq., on the bases of his sex, race, age, and in reprisal for prior
protected EEO activity when he was not interviewed for either of two Supervisory Loan
Specialist positions. Complainant also raised several claims alleging dissatisfaction with the
Agency’s processing of his complaint. In its final decision, the Agency dismissed the complaint
in its entirety. Specifically, the Agency dismissed the claims regarding not being interviewed,
pursuant to § 1614.107(a)(1), for untimely EEO counselor contact as the record showed that
Complainant did not contact an EEO counselor until more than two years after he should have
reasonably suspected discrimination. On appeal, the Commission affirmed the Agency’s
dismissal as Complainant failed to present adequate justification to warrant an extension of the
time limit for initiating EEO contact. The Commission also affirmed the Agency’s dismissal of
the remaining claims, pursuant to § 1614.107(a)(8).
0520150111

2

In his request for reconsideration, Complainant does not provide any evidence or arguments to
show t hat t he C ommission erred in affirming t he A gency’s di smissal of hi s c omplaint. We
remind Complainant 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) (rev. Nov. 9, 1999), at 9-17; see, e.g., Lopez v. Dep't of Agriculture

,
EEOC Request No. 0520070736 (Aug. 20, 2007). Rather, a reconsideration request is an
opportunity to demonstrate that the previous 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. 0120142294 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

(Z0610)
If you decide to file a civil action, and if you do not have or cannot afford the services of an
attorney, you may request from the Court that the Court appoint an attorney to represent you
and that the Court also permit you to file the action without payment of fees, costs, or other
security. See Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et
seq.; the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 29 U.S.C. §§ 791, 794(c). The grant or
denial of the request is within the sole discretion of the Court. Filing a request for an attorney
with the Court does not extend your time in which to file a civil action. Both the request and
0520150111

3
the civil action must be filed within the time limits as stated in the paragraph above (“Right to
File a Civil Action”).

FOR THE COMMISSION:

______________________________
Carlton M. Hadden, Director
Office of Federal Operations

Date
March 25, 2015