Jarrett C,1 Complainant,v.Charles J. Hall, Acting Chairman and President, Export-Import Bank of the United States, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Sep 30, 2019

2019004261 (E.E.O.C. Sep. 30, 2019)

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

Jarrett C,1
Complainant,

v.

Charles J. Hall,
Acting Chairman and President,
Export-Import Bank of the United States,
Agency.

Request No. 2019004261

Appeal No. 0120170213

Hearing No. 570-2014-01051X

Agency No. EODP-13-01

DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

Complainant timely requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or
Commission) reconsider its decision in EEOC Appeal No. 0120170213 (April 18, 2019). 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 Senior Public Affairs Specialist/Vice-
President (GS-15), for the Agency’s Office of Communications in Washington, D.C. Believing
that he was subjected to discrimination based on sex when:

(1) His request for a lateral reassignment to New York City, without a change to
his grade, job description, or job title was denied; and,

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.
2019004261

2
(2) He felt forced to retire when the lateral reassignment was denied.

Complainant filed a formal complaint on February 6, 2014. Following an investigation, the
Agency issued a decision finding no discrimination. Complainant appealed the decision to the
Commission.

In our prior decision, we found that Complainant failed to establish a prima facie case of sex
discrimination because the individual (hereinafter “Comparator”) he cited as treated more
favorably was not similarly situated. See EEOC Appeal No. 0120170213 (April 18, 2019).
Specifically, we noted that Comparator held a different job (Loan Specialist), with a different
supervisor in a different division. See id. Further, she did not supervise others as Complainant
did. See id. Even assuming arguendo that Complainant had presented a prima facie case, the
Commission concluded that the Agency proffered a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for
denying Complainant’s reassignment to New York City: namely, that Complainant’s position
was supervisory. See id. He had conducted performance appraisals, disciplined staff for being
late, and resolved conflicts. See id. Lastly, Complainant did not show that the proffered reasons
were pretext. While Complainant argued that he only performed supervisor duties for a very
limited time, the Commission found that all the managers consistently claimed that his position
was supervisory. See id.

In his request for reconsideration, Complainant reiterates arguments that were previously made,
or should have been made, on appeal. For example, he contends that our prior decision ignored
the fact that Comparator was number two in her division and maintains that he “did not operate
as a supervisor”. Complainant argues that comparators do not need to be under the same
supervisor because the transfer occurred under the same policy that applied to Complainant’s
denial.

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)
(rev. Aug. 5, 2015), at 9-18; 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 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. 0120170213 remains the
Commission's decision. There is no further right of administrative appeal on the decision of the
Commission on this request.
2019004261

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 30, 2019
Date