[Redacted], Bart L., 1 Complainant,v.Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General, Department of Justice, (Federal Bureau of Prisons), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Feb 10, 2022

Appeal No. 2020002489 (E.E.O.C. Feb. 10, 2022)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Bart L.,1 Complainant, v. Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General, Department of Justice, (Federal Bureau of Prisons), Agency. Request No. 2022000145 Appeal No. 2020002489 Agency No. BOP-2018-0163 DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION Complainant timely requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) reconsider its decision in Bart L. v. Department of Justice, EEOC Appeal No. 2020002489 (September 9, 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 for the Agency as a Correctional Treatment Specialist in Lexington, Kentucky. On February 21, 2018, Complainant filed a formal complaint based on race and in reprisal for prior protected activity. 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 2022000145 Complainant claimed discriminatory harassment when a supervisor yelled at him, increased his assignments, threatened disciplinary action, and denied a leave request. Following an investigation, the Agency determined that Complainant neither requested a hearing nor an Agency final decision. As such, on June 14, 2020, the Agency issued a final decision, based on the evidence developed during the EEO investigation, finding no discrimination or unlawful retaliation was established. In EEOC Appeal No. 2020002489, the Commission affirmed the Agency’s final decision finding no discrimination. The Commission also rejected Complainant’s appellate contention that he had timely filed a request for a hearing. In the instant request for reconsideration, we note that the arguments raised were either raised during the original appeal from the Agency’s final decision or could have been raised below. There is considerable replication in the matters raised in the instant request and the matters raised below on appeal from the Agency’s final order. We emphasize 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). 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. 2020002489 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. 4 2022000145 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 February 10, 2022 Date