[Redacted], Alan F., 1 Complainant,v.Christine Wormuth, Secretary, Department of the Army, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Feb 7, 2023

Appeal No. 2021001987 (E.E.O.C. Feb. 7, 2023)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Alan F.,1 Complainant, v. Christine Wormuth, Secretary, Department of the Army, Agency. Request No. 2022004621 Appeal No. 2021001987 Hearing No. 520-2019-00129X Agency No. ARMEPCOM16OCT04053 DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION Complainant requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) reconsider its decision in Alan F. v. Dept. of the Army, EEOC Appeal No. 2021001987 (July 28, 2022). 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, a Test Administrator at the Agency's Military Entrance Processing Station in Boston, Massachusetts, filed a formal EEO complaint alleging that the Agency discriminated against him on the bases of race (African American), sex (male), and in reprisal for prior protected EEO activity when: 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. 2022004621 2 1. Complainant's first-line supervisor (S1) created a hostile work environment when, among other things, S1 changed Complainant's work schedule and work assignments, questioned his use of sick leave and breaks, did not provide him assistance, issued him a lower rating on his second performance appraisal, and failed to address the Acting Supervisor’s (AS) behavior which included stating, “I am nauseated due to all of the questions” Complainant was asking; 2. Complainant's second-line supervisor (S2) created a hostile work environment when, among other things, S2 informed Complainant that he had to fill out a timesheet to request official time to speak to a union representative, allowed AS to demean Complainant, informed Complainant that AS was his supervisor, accused Complainant of being disrespectful when Complainant identified that it was not in line with Agency policy for AS to supervise him, and issued Complainant a letter of reprimand; 3. Complainant's third-line supervisor (S3) created a hostile work environment when, among other things, S3 allowed AS to demean Complainant, informed Complainant that AS was his supervisor, and accused Complainant of being disrespectful when Complainant identified that it was not in line with Agency policy for AS to supervise him. In addition, S3 walked past Complainant and did not acknowledge him after Complainant spoke to S3; and 4. Complainant's fourth-line supervisor (S4) created a hostile work environment when, among other things, S4 questioned Complainant's use of federal funded transportation and issued him a Notice of Proposed Suspension. Following an investigation, Complainant requested a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). The AJ assigned to the matter issued a summary judgment decision in favor of the Agency finding that Complainant was not subjected to discrimination, reprisal, or a hostile work environment as alleged. The Agency subsequently issued a final order fully adopting the AJ’s decision. In the appellate decision, the Commission affirmed the final order. In his request for reconsideration, Complainant expresses his disagreement with the previous decision and largely reiterates arguments previously made on appeal. Among his arguments, Complainant contends that the appellate decision erred in its interpretation of material facts and applicable law. Complainant argues that allowing the appellate decision to stand would result in federal employees’ constitutional rights being violated. We have reviewed the various arguments raised by Complainant in the instant request for reconsideration. However, we can find no basis to disturb the Commission's prior decision. Complainant presents arguments which were previously raised and considered or could have been raised during the original appeal. The Commission emphasizes that a request for reconsideration is not a second appeal. 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). 2022004621 3 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. Thus, we conclude that Complainant has not presented any persuasive evidence to support reconsideration of the Commission's decision. 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. 2021001987 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. 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 February 7, 2023 Date