[Redacted], Elliot M,1 Complainant,v.Denis R. McDonough, Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs (Veterans Health Administration), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Oct 11, 2022

Appeal No. 2021005085 (E.E.O.C. Oct. 11, 2022)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Elliot M,1 Complainant, v. Denis R. McDonough, Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs (Veterans Health Administration), Agency. Request No. 2022002900 Appeal No. 2021005085 Hearing Nos. 490-2016-00094X, 451-2016-00207X, and 490-2017-00152X Agency Nos. 2003-0010-2015103173, 2003-0010-2016100187, 2003-0010-2016102280, and 2003-0010-2016103084 DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION Complainant timely requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) reconsider its decision in EEOC Appeal No. 2021005085 (March 21, 2022). 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 Supervisory Contract Specialist, Grade GS-13, at the Agency’s Central Network Contracting Office in North Little Rock, Arkansas. Complainant filed four formal EEO complaints, which were later consolidated for joint processing, alleging discrimination based on age, disability, race, sex, and in reprisal for prior EEO-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. 2 2022002900 • On August 5, 2015, Complainant filed his first formal EEO complaint, Agency No. 2003- 0010-2015103173, claiming that management failed to respond to his request for a reasonable accommodation. • On January 7, 2016, Complainant filed his second formal EEO complaint, 2003-0010- 2016100187, claiming that on October 6, 2015, the Agency discriminatorily did not select him for promotion to Division Chief as a Supervisory Contract Specialist. • On March 24, 2016, Complainant filed his third formal EEO complaint, Agency No. 2003-0010-2016102280, alleging that the Agency had subjected him to a hostile work environment, claiming that the Agency had discriminated though its adverse actions that included, rating him “fully successful” on his 2016 annual evaluation, threatening to discipline him, denying disability accommodation, denying his request for leave, denying his request to telework and ordering him to return to duty. • On July 27, 2016, Complainant field his fourth formal EEO complaint, Agency No. 2003-0010-2016103084, alleging the Agency subjected him a hostile work environment and disparate treatment claiming that the Agency acted discriminatorily though personnel actions against him such as, but not limited to, failing to provide a report from an internal investigation, violating Complainant’s privacy, issuing a 14-day suspension, failing to provide a progress on the team that Complainant supervised, denying telework, denying disability accommodation, denying his reassignment requests, detailing him to another unit involuntarily, and falsely stating that a contractor had complained about Complainant’s work. Following an investigation, Complainant requested a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). The assigned AJ issued a summary judgment decision, finding no discrimination. The Agency thereafter issued a final action implementing the AJ’s decision. In EEOC Appeal No. 2021005085, the Commission affirmed the Agency’s final action implementing the AJ’s summary judgment decision. In the instant request for reconsideration, though Counsel, Complainant raises numerous arguments which either were addressed, or which could have been addressed, on appeal from the Agency’s final action. We note that much of Complainant’s arguments are in essence a reiteration of previously stated positions, which were expressly addressed by the AJ and in the prior appellate decision. We emphasize that a request for reconsideration is not a second appeal to the Commission. EEO Management Directive for 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 (EEO MD-110), Ch. 9 § VI.A (Aug. 5, 2015); also 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. 3 2022002900 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. 2021005085 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 October 11, 2022 Date