[Redacted], Denis C., 1 Complainant,v.Carlos Del Toro, Secretary, Department of the Navy, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Feb 6, 2023

Appeal No. 2021002282 (E.E.O.C. Feb. 6, 2023)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Denis C.,1 Complainant, v. Carlos Del Toro, Secretary, Department of the Navy, Agency. Request No. 2022004365 Appeal No. 2021002282 Agency No. DON 19-68094-04657 Hearing No. 480-2020-00644X DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION Complainant timely requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) reconsider its decision in Woodrow F. v. Department of the Navy, EEOC Appeal No. 2021002282 (July 5, 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). During the relevant time, Complainant worked for the Agency as a Materials Expediter in Camp Pendleton, California 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. 3 2022004365 On October 14, 2019, Complainant filed a formal complaint claiming the Agency discriminated against him based on race, color, age, and in reprisal for prior protected activity when: he was prevented from ordering supplies; he was prevented from being in a leadership position or having authority; management preselected candidates without competition, depriving him of the opportunity to apply or to be considered for positions; he was overlooked for promotion opportunities; a co-worker was taken off his team, making it more difficult for Complainant and the co-worker; he was not selected of a Supervisor Inventory Management Specialist position; another employee was preselected for a supervisory position; he was not selected for a Supervisor Inventory Management Specialist position; an interview for a supervisor position was scheduled when he was on leave, without alternative means for an interview; he received negative performance ratings; he was told he would never get portioned if he stayed in the Material Management Department; he was treated differently because he served in a different branch of military service; and he received a reprimand. The Agency dismissed some claims on procedural grounds and accepted the remaining claims for investigation. Following the investigation into his claims, Complainant requested a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge. The assigned AJ issued a summary judgment decision, finding no discrimination was established as alleged. The Agency thereafter issued a final order implementing the AJ’s decision. Complainant appealed. In Appeal No. 2021002282, the Commission affirmed the Agency’s final order, implementing the AJ’s summary judgement decision. In the instant request for reconsideration, Complainant raises arguments which either were raised, or which could have been raised below. 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), 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. 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. 2021002282 remains the Commission's decision. There is no further right of administrative appeal on the decision of the Commission on this request. 4 2022004365 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 6, 2023 Date