Christoper M.,1 Complainant,v.Dr. Mark T. Esper, Secretary, Department of the Army, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Feb 2, 2018

0520170613 (E.E.O.C. Feb. 2, 2018)

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

Christoper M.,1
Complainant,

v.

Dr. Mark T. Esper,
Secretary,
Department of the Army,
Agency.

Request No. 0520170613

Appeal No. 0120170045

Hearing No. 520-2015-00037X

Agency Nos. ARUSMA13NOV03809;
ARUSMA14SEP03399

DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

Complainant timely requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or
Commission) reconsider its decision in Christoper M. v. Dep’t of the Army, EEOC Appeal No.
0120170045 (Aug. 16, 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 13, 2013 and November 3, 2014, Complainant filed two formal complaints
alleging that the Agency discriminated against him on the bases of disability and in reprisal for
prior protected EEO activity when: on October 30, 2013, he received a rating of “Successful” on
his appraisal; on December 6, 2013, he required leave to represent another employee at a hearing
before the Merit Systems Protection Board; on December 24, 2013, he was verbally counseled;
on January 22, 2014, he was not selected for the collateral duty Safety Officer position for his

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.
0520170613

2
unit; on March 28, 2014, he was notified that his hours would change; on July 15, 2014, he was
rated lower than expected on his performance appraisal; on July 24, 2014, he was told to give
one of his work assignments to his coworker; on the same day, a coworker verbally harassed
him; and on July 31, 2014, he was not provided with supporting documents for his appraisal.

Following an investigation into the complaint, Complainant requested a hearing before an EEOC
Administrative Judge (AJ). The AJ assigned to the matter granted the Agency’s motion and
issued a summary judgment decision on May 31, 2016, finding that Complainant had not been
subjected to discrimination or reprisal as alleged. The Agency subsequently issued a final order
fully implementing the AJ’s decision. Complainant appealed and, in Christoper M. v. Dep’t of
the Army, EEOC Appeal No. 0120170045 (Aug. 16, 2017), the Commission affirmed the
Agency’s final order.

In his request for reconsideration, Complainant expresses his disagreement with the appellate
decision. Complainant argues that the AJ erred in granting the Agency’s motion for summary
judgment and failed to consider his submissions. 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), at 9-18 (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 presented no evidence to
support reconsideration of the Commission’s finding that he failed to show that the Agency’s
actions were motivated by discriminatory or retaliatory animus. 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. 0120170045 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.

0520170613

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

February 2, 2018
Date