[Redacted], Zachery V., 1 Complainant,v.Frank Kendall, Secretary, Department of the Air Force, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Sep 22, 2022

Appeal No. 2021005281 (E.E.O.C. Sep. 22, 2022)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Zachery V.,1 Complainant, v. Frank Kendall, Secretary, Department of the Air Force, Agency. Request No. 2022003059 Appeal No. 2021005281 Hearing No. 451-2013-00221X Agency No. 8Z0J12028 DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION Complainant timely requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) reconsider its decision in EEOC Appeal No. 2021005281 (March 31, 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 period at issue, Complainant worked for the Agency as an Electrician at Lackland Air Force Base, in Texas. 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. 2 2022003059 On October 23, 2012, Complainant filed a formal complaint, claiming that he was discriminated again based on disability and in reprisal for prior protected activity. Complainant alleged that a supervisor would assign a co-worker a half-ton truck and another co-worker would get the supervisor’s old truck, without the need for a medical request; Complainant was assigned a truck with a flat tire and was told by a supervisor to “fix it or walk;” Complainant has required computer technicians to clean up an overloaded inbox because the supervisor allows employees the opportunity to use the computer; Complainant was assigned unreasonable maintenance duties and was told he was taking too long; he was denied a request for safety shoes; he was rated unfairly on a performance appraisal; a supervisor threatened Complainant; he was denied the use of a computer even though he was completing an Agency survey; the supervisor denied Complainant’s request for a half-ton truck, although Complainant’s physician indicated that a smaller truck created a medical concern; he has been denied requests for safety steel-toe shoes; he was provided a negative performance feedback’ and he not provided a close-out appraisal before his supervisor’s retirement. Following an investigation, Complainant requested a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). The assigned AJ found no discrimination, in a summary judgment decision. Thereafter, the Agency issued a final order adopting the AJ’s summary judgment decision. In EEOC Appeal No. 2021005281, the Commission affirmed the Agency’s final order adopting the AJ’s summary judgment decision. In the instant request, Complainant provides no persuasive argument which would support a determination that the prior decision was improperly decided. 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. 2021005281 remains the Commission's decision. There is no further right of administrative appeal on the decision of the Commission on this request. 3 2022003059 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 September 22, 2022 Date