[Redacted], Abe U., 1 Complainant,v.Thomas W. Harker, Acting Secretary, Department of the Navy, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Jun 29, 2021

Appeal No. 2020001333 (E.E.O.C. Jun. 29, 2021)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Abe U.,1 Complainant, v. Thomas W. Harker, Acting Secretary, Department of the Navy, Agency. Request No. 2021002794 Appeal No. 2020001333 Hearing Nos. 430-2016-00033X 430-2017-00136X Agency Nos. DON 15-42158-00109 DON-15-42158-00892 DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION Complainant timely requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) reconsider its decision in EEOC Appeal No. 2020001333 (March 29, 2021). 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 was employed by the Agency as a Supervisory Training Instructor, assigned to the Production Resources Consolidated Training Department at Norfolk Naval Shipyard in Portsmouth, Virginia. Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging that the Agency subjected him to discrimination and a hostile work environment on the basis of his race (African American). Complainant raised 14 allegations in support of his claim that included, but were not 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. 2021002794 2 limited to, constructing a model but then later being told there was never an intent to follow the model, not being invited to meetings, comments about training conducted by Complainant, not having enough instructors to execute his assigned mission, comments made about him such as he was not a team player, not being allowed to conduct training during scheduled training dates and times, having his training plan changed, being moved from his position of Supervisory Instructor in Reactor Services and being reassigned to Building 510R2, and two pre-action investigations initiated concerning his performance and conduct. Complainant filed a second EEO complaint alleging he was discriminated against on the bases of race (African American) and reprisal when: (1) on December 15, 2015, he became aware that he had not been selected for a temporary position of Nuclear Training manager, GS-1712-13; and (2) on June 21, 2016, he was not selected for the position of Supervisory Training Instructor, GS-1712-13. The Agency investigated the matter and thereafter Complainant requested a hearing. Our prior appellate decision affirmed the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Administrative Judge’s (AJ) decision following a hearing which found in favor of the Agency, concluding Complainant failed to prove his discrimination claims. In her decision, the AJ found that Complainant did not refute the Agency’s reasons for its actions such as the production needs of the service, available resources, the Congressional Inquiry into training, and the guidelines for record reviews as opposed to official audits. In sum, the AJ concluded, after consideration of all the evidence gathered during the investigation and hearing that Complainant failed to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence that the Agency’s actions were based on race. With regard to the non-selections, the AJ further concluded that while Complainant was well qualified for the positions, his qualifications were not plainly superior to those of the selectee. In his request for reconsideration, Complainant expresses his disagreement with the previous decision, reiterates the facts, and references the record in detail. 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. 2020001333 remains the Commission's decision. There is no further right of administrative appeal on the decision of the Commission on this request. 2021002794 3 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 June 29, 2021 Date