0520180088
03-06-2018
Jeremy S.,1 Complainant, v. Dr. Mark T. Esper, Secretary, Department of the Army, Agency.
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Jeremy S.,1
Complainant,
v.
Dr. Mark T. Esper,
Secretary,
Department of the Army,
Agency.
Request No. 0520180088
Appeal No. 0120161378
Hearing No. 550-2013-00084X
Agency No. ARTACOM11AUG03797
DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
Complainant timely requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) reconsider its decision in EEOC Appeal No. 0120161378 (October 24, 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).
Complainant worked as a Management and Program Analyst at the Agency's Sierra Army Depot in Herlong, California.
Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging that he was subjected to discrimination on the bases of race (Caucasian), color (White), and reprisal when: (1) on September 21, 2011, the Director of the Resource Management Office inquired into his usage of the resource management folders on the internal I Drive; (2) on August 8, 2011, the Director of Resource Management directed him to return to the van pool, which he considered a hostile work environment; and (3) on August 2, 2011, due to the alleged harassment of C-1, a van passenger, and C-2, the van pool coordinator, he was compelled to discontinue participation in the van pool, and that another passenger, A-2, neglected to keep him free from the hostile environment.
Our prior appellate decision affirmed the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Administrative Judge's (AJ) decision by summary judgment which found in favor of the Agency, concluding Complainant failed to prove his discrimination or hostile work environment claims. The AJ noted that the issue with the vanpool started when Complainant was asked to change his seat for someone who had just had a baby. Complainant left the vanpool and found alternate transportation. He requested to leave the vanpool, but was informed that if he did so he would have to return the voucher money he had been given to participate in vanpool. Complainant felt that A-2, another rider who was not his supervisor, should have taken action to defend him. Further, after Complainant was told he would have to return his voucher money, he returned to the vanpool. As such, the AJ found that there was no evidence that the Agency's actions were in any way based on discriminatory or retaliatory animus. Further, the AJ did not find that the isolated inquiry regarding the I-drive was "pervasive" or "severe."
In his request for reconsideration, Complainant expresses his disagreement with the previous decision and continues to argue he was subjected to harassment. 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. 0120161378 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. 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
March 6, 2018
__________________
Date
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.
---------------
------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
------------------------------------------------------------
3
0520180088