U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Carl M.,1
Complainant,
v.
Kathy Kraninger,
Director,
Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection,
Agency.
Request No. 2020002029
Appeal No. 2019001482
Agency No. CFPB-0011-2018
DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
Complainant timely requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or
Commission) reconsider its decision in EEOC Appeal No. 2019001482 (December 17, 2019).
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 as an Examiner at the Agency’s Division of
Supervision, Fair Lending and Enforcement in Dallas, Texas.
On March 15, 2018, Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging that the Agency subjected him
to a hostile work environment in reprisal for his current and prior EEO activity 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.
20200020292
1. from November 29, 2017 through March 3, 2018, he was not provided adequate resources
for his assigned tasks or growth opportunities;
2. on January 10, 2018, he was the only examiner placed in front of the financial institution’s
surveillance cameras;
3. on January 22, 2018, he received an email from Acting Examiner-in-Charge (EIC) with
“humiliating instructions;”
4. on January 23, 2018, EIC said in front of all the examiners that Complainant was a
“difficult person to work with,” and gave him a verbal performance appraisal; and
5. on January 31, 2018, he became aware that a picture of a laptop was taken in the bathroom
at a financial institution, and on February 7, 2018, Complainant was ushered into an
unscheduled meeting and humiliated in front of everyone present while he was questioned
about the picture.
In its final decision, the Agency found that even assuming that the management officials were
aware of Complainant’s protected activity, he did not establish that they were motivated by
retaliatory animus. The Agency found that Complainant did not show that the events occurred as
alleged. Regarding event 1, Complainant’s first-line supervisor stated that she assigned
Complainant two other examiners to assist him and for event 2, the witness statements showed that
that the examiners were not assigned seats. The Agency also found that Complainant did not prove
that EIC sent a humiliating email in event 3 or that he gave Complainant a verbal performance
appraisal in event 4. The Agency also determined that Complainant’s mere assertion that the event
5 was unscheduled, and that he was humiliated in front of others was not sufficient to show that
the event occurred as alleged. The Agency also found that the incidents, either individually or
collectively, were neither severe nor pervasive when judged by a reasonable person’s standard.
Based on this evidence, the Agency concluded no discrimination had been proven.
In EEOC Appeal No. 2019001482, we affirmed the Agency’s finding of no discrimination.
In his request for reconsideration, Complainant expresses his disagreement with the decision in
EEOC Appeal No. 2019001482. Complainant argues that the Commission’s decisions “were not
based on impartial record. I believe the decision was one-sided and ‘agency-friendly.’” He
reiterates the arguments made in his initial appeal and directs the Commission to review
documentation submitted in his initial appeal.
However, these arguments were already addressed in our original appellate decision. We
emphasize that a request for reconsideration is not a second appeal to the Commission. See EEO
MD-110, Ch. 9, § VII.A. 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. 2019001482 remains the Commission's
20200020293
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
August 31, 2020
Date
