[Redacted], Antony Z., 1 Complainant,v.Jelena McWilliams, Chairman, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Sep 27, 2021

Appeal No. 2020001681 (E.E.O.C. Sep. 27, 2021)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Antony Z.,1 Complainant, v. Jelena McWilliams, Chairman, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Agency. Request No. 2021003401 Appeal No. 2020001681 Agency No. FDICEO-19-019 DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION Complainant timely requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) reconsider its decision in EEOC Appeal No. 2020001681 (April 27, 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). During the relevant time, Complainant worked as a Supervisory Human Resources Specialist, CM-0201-1, at the Agency’s Division of Administration (DOA), Human Resources Branch, in Arlington, Virginia. On May 15, 2019, Complainant filed a formal complaint alleging that the Agency discriminated against him and subjected him to a hostile work environment on the bases of race (African American), color (“light”). sex (male), age (55), and in reprisal for prior protected EEO activity when: 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. 2021003401 2 1. On November 21, 2018, an employee (not in his supervisory chain) made an allegation that Complainant was rude to a co-worker and reported him to Complainant’s second- level supervisor for referral to the Labor and Employee Relations Office for further action; 2. On December 17, 2018, after Complainant requested two days of sick leave, Complainant’s supervisor questioned his request for sick leave for two consecutive Fridays; 3. On December 17, 2018, Complainant’s supervisor informed Complainant that he would not be receiving an award for 2018; 4. On January 4, 2019, Complainant’s supervisor threatened to discipline Complainant and told him that if he was not retiring soon, she would take some sort of action against him; and 5. On January 31, 2019, Complainant’s supervisor issued Complainant’s 2018 Leadership Performance Management and Recognition (LPMR) evaluation, which contained negative comments. After an investigation, the Agency provided Complainant with a copy of the report of investigation and notice of his right to request a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge. In accordance with Complainant’s request, the Agency issued a final decision pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.110(b). In its decision, the Agency concluded that Complainant failed to provide that the Agency subjected him to discrimination or reprisal. The Agency concluded that Complainant failed to offer proof that the actions were taken due to this protected groups and that none of the actions taken together, were sufficiently severe or pervasive to prove harassment. Regarding comments made by an Agency employee, the Agency noted that these comments appeared to have been meant in jest and not as an offense toward Complainant. Nonetheless, when management was made aware, the allegedly offensive conduct ceased. Regarding leave, the Agency found the inquiry was due to a legitimate business need to make sure the office had adequate coverage. S1 did not issue Complainant an award because she determined that no award was warranted. She denied threatening him and stated that her comments were meant to be constructive criticism. In EEOC Appeal No. 2020001681, the Commission concluded that the evidence of record fully supported the AJ’s decision that Complainant’s allegations of discrimination had not been proven. In his request for reconsideration of that decision, Complainant essentially repeats the same arguments made and considered during his original appeal. 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. 2021003401 3 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. 2020001681 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 September 27, 2021 Date