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

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Sep 26, 2022

Appeal No. 2021001456 (E.E.O.C. Sep. 26, 2022)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Aldo B.,1 Complainant, v. Christine Wormuth, Secretary, Department of the Army, Agency. Request No. 2022002648 Appeal No. 2021001456 Hearing No. 420-2020-00143X Agency No. ARREDSTON19FEB00584 DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION Complainant timely requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) reconsider its decision in Aldo B. v. Dep’t of the Army, EEOC Appeal No. 2021001456 (Apr. 11, 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, an Electronics Engineer at the Agency's Research and Advanced Concepts Division, SMDC Technical Center in Redstone Arsenal, Alabama, filed a formal EEO complaint alleging that the Agency discriminated against him and subjected him to a hostile work environment on the bases of race (African American), sex (male), disability, and age (born 1967) 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. 2022002648 2 1. In October 2018, the Director of Research and Advanced Concepts Division, also Complainant's supervisor (S1) asked him about past drug use during the course of a job interview as it related to qualifying for a Top-Secret security clearance; 2. In October 2018, the supervisor of the eventual selectee was chosen to serve as a panel member (Panel Member 1) in the interviews for the position of Interdisciplinary Engineer, NH-0854/0855/0861-04, Vacancy Announcement Number SCBK186884560646; 3. In October 2018, another panel member (Panel Member 2) scored Complainant significantly lower than the other panel members thereby affecting his overall rating; 4. On February 12, 2019, Complainant learned he was not selected for the position of Interdisciplinary Engineer, NH-0854/0855/0861-04, Vacancy Announcement Number SCBK186884560646; and 5. On unspecified dates in February 2019, he had several racial harassment interactions with S1 to which he asked him to stop verbally and in email. Following an investigation, Complainant requested a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). The AJ assigned to the matter held a hearing and issued a decision finding that Complainant was not subjected to discrimination 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 reiterates arguments previously made on 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). 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. 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. 2021001456 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. 2022002648 3 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 26, 2022 Date