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

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Aug 16, 2021

Appeal No. 2020001673 (E.E.O.C. Aug. 16, 2021)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Cyrus H.,1 Complainant, v. Thomas W. Harker, Acting Secretary, Department of the Navy, Agency. Request No. 2021003013 Appeal No. 2020001673 Hearing No. 430-2017-00312X Agency No. 16-40085-03042 DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION Complainant timely requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) reconsider its decision in EEOC Appeal No. 2020001673 (March 17, 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 was employed by the Agency as a General Engineer (Construction Manager), GS-0801-12, in Norfolk, Virginia. On September 29, 2016, Complainant filed a formal EEO complaint alleging that the Agency subjected him to discrimination based on race (African-American), color (Black), 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. 2021003013 2 a) On January 21, 2016, the Supervisory General Engineer stated Complainant’s reply to his email was unacceptable and unprofessional; b) On January 27, 2016, the Supervisory General Engineer requested an analysis from Complainant. Complainant provided an analysis and the Supervisory General Engineer did not accept it; c) On February 19, 2016, Complainant was issued a Letter of Reprimand by the Supervisory General Engineer; d) On April 6, 2016, the Supervisory General Engineer and the Supervisory Constrution Director did not accept a Beneficial Occupancy Date letter on Pier Nine and Ten from Complainant; e) On April 26, 2016, the Supervisory General Engineer directed Complainant to retain five percent of a contractor’s requested payment, and Complainant recommended releasing payment in full; f) On April 27, the Supervisory General Engineer directed Complainant to recall an invoice, where Complainant does not have authority on the contract do so; g) On May 13, 2016, the Supervisory General Engineer directed Complainant to draft a letter to address scheduling issues with a contract; h) On May 18, 2016, Complainant reported at 10:30 a.m., instead of his normal report time of 6:00 a.m., the Supervisory General Engineer denied Complainant leave and the Supervisory General Engineer charged him 4.5 hours of Absent Without Leave; i) On July 29, 2016, the Supervisory Construction Director issued Complainant a Letter of Suspension; and j) On September 7, 2016, Complainant was threatened with disciplinary action by the Supervisory Construction Director. After its investigation, the Agency provided Complainant with a copy of a report of investigation and notice of right to request a hearing before an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) Administrative Judge (AJ). Complainant timely requested a hearing. The Agency submitted a motion for summary judgment. The AJ subsequently issued a decision by summary judgement in favor of the Agency. 2021003013 3 The Agency issued its final order adopting the AJ’s finding that Complainant failed to prove discrimination or reprisal as alleged. In EEOC Appeal No. 2020001673, we 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. 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. 2020001673 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. 2021003013 4 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 16, 2021 Date