Jamey M.,1 Complainant,v.Steven T. Mnuchin, Secretary, Department of the Treasury (Internal Revenue Service), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Aug 21, 2018

0520180329 (E.E.O.C. Aug. 21, 2018)

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

Jamey M.,1
Complainant,

v.

Steven T. Mnuchin,
Secretary,
Department of the Treasury
(Internal Revenue Service),
Agency.

Request No. 0520180329

Appeal No. 0120161281

Hearing No. 480-2016-00110X

Agency No. IRS-14-0757-F

DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

Complainant timely requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or
Commission) reconsider its decision in EEOC Appeal No. 0120161281 (February 23, 2018).
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).

Complainant filed an EEO complaint in which he alleged that the Agency had discriminated
against him on the bases of disability, age, and reprisal by not selecting him for an advertised
vacancy. The Agency investigated the complaint and thereafter Complainant requested a hearing
before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). The AJ dismissed the hearing request on the grounds
that Complainant had not complied with the AJ’s orders. The Agency thereupon issued a final
decision finding no discrimination.

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.
0520180329

2

In its previous decision, the Commission affirmed the Agency’s decision. We found that
Complainant neither remembered whether he was interviewed for the position nor provided a
response to the interrogatory about why he thought he was qualified for the position. We also
found that Complainant’s application was placed in the lowest-qualified category based on his
application score. We concluded that, beyond his bare assertions, Complainant had produced
inadequate evidence to support his claim that the Agency’s articulated reason for not selecting
him, that he was not as qualified as the selectee, was pretextual.

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 (August 5, 2015); see, e.g., Lopez v. Department of Agriculture, EEOC
Request No. 0520070736 (August 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. He has not presented any argument or evidence tending to
establish the existence of either reconsideration criterion. Instead, he merely asserts that the
previous decision was incorrect and incompetently prepared. In other words, Complainant
appears to be relitigating his appeal on the merits, effectively raising the same contentions that we
rejected in our previous decision.

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. 0120161281 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.
0520180329

3
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 21, 2018
Date