[Redacted], Gilbert B., 1 Complainant,v.Lloyd J. Austin III, Secretary, Department of Defense (Defense Contract Management Agency), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Jan 5, 2023

Appeal No. 2021003307 (E.E.O.C. Jan. 5, 2023)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Gilbert B.,1 Complainant, v. Lloyd J. Austin III, Secretary, Department of Defense (Defense Contract Management Agency), Agency. Request No. 2022004728 Appeal No. 2021003307 Agency No. P8-20-0011 DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION Complainant requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) reconsider its decision in Gilbert B. v. Dep’t of Defense, EEOC Appeal No. 2021003307 (Aug. 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). On February 5, 2020, Complainant filed a formal complaint alleging that the Agency discriminated against him in reprisal for prior EEO activity when: 1. From April 16, 2019, to September 5, 2019, DCMA Northrop Grumman El Segundo management officials treated him differently than others when they made false complaints and took adverse actions against him in an attempt to remove him from 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. 2022004728 2 Federal Service. Complainant provided the following information in support of his claim: a. On April 16, 2019, the Agency blocked his access to Microsoft Outlook email and the Microsoft Edge web browser; b. On May 3, 2019, a named Lieutenant Colonel suspended his security clearance; c. On May 10, 2019, the Lieutenant Colonel placed him on paid Administrative Leave until determination of his eligibility for a security clearance; d. On May 16, 2019, an Information Technology (IT) Specialist shouted at Complainant, questioned him, and dared Complainant to report him when he requested the IT Specialist’s assistance to delete his personal data from his DCMA laptop, after he became aware on May 15, 2019, that he did not have administrative privileges to delete personal information from his laptop; e. On May 20, 2019, the Supervisory General Engineer did not reply to Complainant’s email request to have a meeting with the IT Administrator to get assistance to delete his personal data from his DCMA laptop; f. On May 22, 2019, the Lt Col requested that Complainant return his government issued equipment which included his DCMA laptop, Common Access Card (CAC), and Northrop Grumman badge; and g. On September 5, 2019, the Supervisory General Engineer issued Complainant a Notice of Indefinite Suspension. 2. On May 1, 2019, the EEO Investigator, Investigations Resolutions Directorate (IRD) told Complainant to stop sending her emails with new evidence after she completed her investigation in his previous EEO complaint (Agency Case Number: P8-18-0088). The Agency, upon Complainant’s request, issued a final decision finding no discrimination as alleged. Complainant appealed, and the Commission’s prior decision affirmed the Agency’s final decision. In his request, Complainant provides no evidence to warrant granting his request. The Commission emphasizes 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) (Aug. 5, 2015), at 9-18; 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. 2022004728 3 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. 2021003307 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 January 5, 2023 Date