[Redacted], Alejandro B., 1 Complainant,v.Richard Tischner, Director, Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Jan 6, 2021

Appeal No. 2020001486 (E.E.O.C. Jan. 6, 2021)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Alejandro B.,1 Complainant, v. Richard Tischner, Director, Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency, Agency. Request No. 2021000056 Appeal No. 2020001486 Agency No. CSOSA-EEO-F-20-0002 DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION Complainant timely requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) reconsider its decision in Alejandro B. v. Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency, EEOC Appeal No. 2020001486 (Sept. 29, 2020). 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, a GL-12 Community Supervision Officer at the Agency’s facility in Washington, D.C., filed a formal EEO complaint alleging that the Agency discriminated against him and subjected him to a hostile work environment based on unlawful retaliation when: 1. On August 1, 2019, a coworker emailed Complainant alleging “egregious” errors within Complainant's Core Case Management Activities and Special Core Case Management Activities; and 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. 2021000056 2 2. On October 22, 2019, the coworker called Complainant’s Agency cell phone and threatened him by stating, “this is my last time telling you about talking with my SCSO and my clients” and hung up. The Agency dismissed the complaint pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.107(a)(1) on the grounds it failed to state a claim. The Agency determined that Complainant’s complaint did not allege that he was subjected to a hostile work environment because of a basis protected by any EEO statute and, alternatively, Complainant did not allege facts that if true would establish that he was subjected to an unlawful hostile work environment. In the appellate decision, the Commission affirmed the Agency’s dismissal decision. The Commission determined that Complainant asserted that the coworker was harassing him because he had previously reported errors by the coworker to management. Complainant did not allege that he reported any discriminatory conduct on the part of the coworker. Without any allegation that the retaliation was in response to protected activity, the Commission concluded that Complainant could not prove that the alleged harassment could dissuade a reasonable employee from making or supporting a charge of discrimination. In his request for reconsideration, Complainant argues that the Agency improperly fragmented his allegations. 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), Chap. 9 § VI.A (Aug. 5, 2015); see, e.g., Lopez v. Dep't of Agric., EEOC Request No. 0520070736 (Aug. 20, 2007). A request for reconsideration is not the time for Complainant to raise new evidence or new arguments. 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 persuasive evidence to support reconsideration of the Commission’s 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. 2020001486 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. 2021000056 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 January 6, 2021 Date