Julius P.,1 Complainant,v.Kirstjen M. Nielsen, Secretary, Department of Homeland Security (Transportation Security Administration), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Aug 22, 2018

0520180297 (E.E.O.C. Aug. 22, 2018)

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

Julius P.,1
Complainant,

v.

Kirstjen M. Nielsen,
Secretary,
Department of Homeland Security
(Transportation Security Administration),
Agency.

Request No. 0520180297

Appeal No. 0120161145

Agency No. HS-TSA-00004-2015

DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

Complainant timely requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or
Commission) reconsider its decision in Julius P. v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., EEOC Appeal No.
0120161145 (Feb. 8, 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).

On May 18, 2015, Complainant filed a formal EEO complaint alleging that the Agency
discriminated against him and subjected him to a hostile work environment in reprisal for prior
protected EEO activity when, on September 3, 2014, Complainant’s duties were reassigned; and
on October 1, 2014, management sent Complainant condescending and offensive emails to
Complainant about his salary.

Following an investigation, the Agency issued a final agency decision (FAD) after Complainant
failed to request a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge.

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.
0520180297

2
Therein, the Agency found that Complainant failed to show that he was subjected to reprisal or a
hostile work environment as alleged. Complainant appealed and, in Julius P. v. Dep’t of
Homeland Sec., EEOC Appeal No. 0120161145 (Feb. 8, 2018), the Commission affirmed the
FAD. The Commission noted that, despite Complainant’s arguments on appeal, the Agency did
not err in issuing a FAD despite Complainant’s request to consolidate the complaint with another
complaint pending before an EEOC Administrative Judge.

In his request for reconsideration, Complainant expresses his disagreement with the previous
decision and reiterates his arguments regarding the Agency’s failure to consolidate his
complaints. 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 not done so here. Complainant has not presented any evidence
demonstrating that the Commission erred in finding that the Agency properly denied his request
to consolidate his complaints and that he failed to show that he was subjected to reprisal or a
hostile work environment. 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. 0120161145 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.
0520180297

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 22, 2018
Date