[Redacted], Drew N, 1 Complainant,v.Jennifer M. Granholm, Secretary, Department of Energy, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Mar 2, 2023

Appeal No. 2021002718 (E.E.O.C. Mar. 2, 2023)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Drew N,1 Complainant, v. Jennifer M. Granholm, Secretary, Department of Energy, Agency. Request No. 2022004714 Appeal No. 2021002718 Hearing No. 570-2019-00428X; 570-2020-00537X Agency No. 17-0100-HQ-LP; DOE-19-0014-HQ-LP DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION Complainant timely requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) reconsider its decision in EEOC Appeal No. 2021002718 (August 3, 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 as a Supervisory Loan Specialist, GS-1165-15, in the Agency’s Loan Program Office located in Washington, D.C. Complainant filed two complaints, claiming discrimination based on national origin, disability, age, and in reprisal for prior protected activity. Complainant alleged that Complainant’s first-line supervisor emailed Complainant stating that a matter involving misconduct (including taking time off without supervisor knowledge or approval, exhibiting unprofessional behavior in the 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. 2022004714 2 office, using inappropriate language, and making direct threats towards Complainant) by Complainant’s subordinate employee was closed; issued Complainant a Letter of Reprimand; denied Complainant’s request for a telework agreement; denied Complainant’s ad hoc telework request, which he sought due to a medical appointment; along with the Chief Operating Officer, Loan Programs Office, gave Complainant an unfair and inaccurate performance evaluation for FY2017; denied Complainant’s request for reasonable accommodation; instructed Complainant to report to work at Agency Headquarters; denied Complainant’s request to temporarily telework on a fulltime basis as a reasonable accommodation for his disability; instructed Complainant to report to work on March 12, 2018; suspended Complainant’s pay and marked him as absent without leave; ignored Complainant’s request for assistance and advice after his medical condition was exacerbated as a result of reporting to work as instructed; issued Complainant a Performance Counseling Memorandum; failed to act on Complainant’s time off request; falsely accused Complainant of not following policy regarding timekeeping; issued Complainant a less than desirable performance rating for FY 2018; and issued Complainant his FY 2019 performance plan, which contained elements with which Complainant disagrees, that he believes are intentionally ambiguous, subjective and contain technical aspects that are more fitting for a scientist or an engineer than a supervisor in Portfolio Management, which is a strictly financial and administrative position. After investigations into the complaints, Complainant requested a hearing, and the subject complaints were consolidated. The assigned EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ) issued a decision by summary judgment concluding the evidence of record did not establish any discrimination. Thereafter, the Agency issued a final order implementing the AJ’s finding of no discrimination. Complainant appealed. In EEOC Appeal No. 2021002718, the Commission affirmed the Agency’s final order implementing the AJ’s finding of no discrimination. In the instant request for reconsideration, we have carefully reviewed Complainant’s arguments and determine that the matters either were raised or could have been raised below. We note that during the original appeal from the Agency’s final order, Complainant presented extensive arguments, many of which have been replicated in the instant request. 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), 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. 2022004714 3 The decision in EEOC Appeal No. 2021002718 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 March 2, 2023 Date