Bryan T.,1 Complainant,v.Linda McMahon, Administrator, Small Business Administration, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Dec 20, 2017

0520170533 (E.E.O.C. Dec. 20, 2017)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013

Bryan T.,1
Complainant,

v.

Linda McMahon,
Administrator,
Small Business Administration,
Agency.

Request No. 0520170533

Appeal No. 0120160393

Hearing No. 530-2013-00036X

Agency No. 11-12-012

DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

Complainant timely requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or
Commission) reconsider its decision in EEOC Appeal No. 0120160393 (July 14, 2017). 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 December 12, 2011, Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging that the Agency
discriminated against him on the bases of race (Asian) and national origin (China) when on
November 22, 2011, he learned that he was not selected for the position of International Trade
Specialist, GS-1140-14, advertised under Vacancy Announcement No. 11H-26I-CD.

Following an investigation, Complainant requested a hearing before an EEOC Administrative
Judge (AJ). The AJ assigned to the matter issued a summary judgment decision in favor of the
Agency. In the decision, the AJ determined that the Agency had articulated legitimate,

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.
0520170533

2
nondiscriminatory reasons for not selecting Complainant. For example, selection officials stated
that the Selectee was the best candidate for the position based on his demonstrated abilities
performing the duties of the position on a temporary basis; his experience working with the
Export-Import Bank, International Trade Finance, and credit insurance; and his established
presence in the area. By contrast, selection officials stated that Complainant lacked the
specialized and long-term on-the-ground experience that the Selectee had and Complainant did
not possess the experience and skills in the desired market. The AJ concluded that Complainant
failed to show that the Agency’s reasons for its actions were pretextual. As a result, the AJ
found that Complainant had not been subjected to discrimination as alleged. Complainant
appealed and, in Bryan T. v. Small Bus. Admin., EEOC Appeal No. 0120160393 (July 14,
2017), the Commission affirmed the AJ’s decision.

In his request for reconsideration, Complainant expresses his disagreement with the previous
decision and reiterates arguments previously raised during the appeal. 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
presented any evidence to support reconsideration of the Commission’s finding that he failed to
show that he was subjected to discrimination. As such, Complainant has not put forth any
persuasive arguments to support granting the request for reconsideration.

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. 0120160393 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.

0520170533

3
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

December 20, 2017
Date