[Redacted], Eric T., 1 Complainant,v.Thomas J. Vilsack, Secretary, Department of Agriculture (Farm Service Agency), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Jun 3, 2021

Appeal No. 2021000948 (E.E.O.C. Jun. 3, 2021)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Eric T.,1 Complainant, v. Thomas J. Vilsack, Secretary, Department of Agriculture (Farm Service Agency), Agency. Request No. 2021001992 Appeal No. 2021000948 Agency No. FPAC-2020-00033 DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION Complainant timely requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) reconsider its decision in Eric T. v. Dep’t of Agric., EEOC Appeal No. 2021000948 (Jan. 22, 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). Complainant, a GS-2210-13 Computer Specialist at the Agency’s facility in Washington, D.C., filed a formal EEO complaint alleging that the Agency discriminated against him on the bases of race (Caucasian), disability (vision, back and left leg injuries, and hypertension), age (48), and in reprisal for prior protected EEO activity, when: 1. On November 18, 2019, Complainant received a Fully Successful rating on his Fiscal Year (FY) 2019 Performance Evaluation; 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. 2021001992 2 2. On October 4, 2019, Complainant became aware that he was not selected for a Supervisory Information Technology position, advertised under Vacancy Announcement Number: FPAC-19-10560907-DH-ISD-SF; and 3. On several dates, Complainant was subjected to various acts of harassment including, but not limited to, the following incidents: a. in October 2018 and other unspecified dates, Complainant's co-workers confronted and yelled at him, b. during mid-2018, a co-worker informed Complainant that two other employees informed her that Complainant was a racist, c. on May 21, 2018, a document about “White Privilege” was left on Complainant's desk with Complainant's name written on it, d. on May 18, 2018, management relocated Complainant's office and two employees verbally attacked and yelled at Complainant to “get the fuck out,” and e. on unspecified dates, an employee accused Complainant of bringing down filing cabinets and putting them in the hallway, moving items on other employees' desks, and bothering staff members. Following an investigation, the Agency issued a final decision finding that Complainant was not subjected to discrimination or reprisal as alleged. In the appellate decision, the Commission affirmed the final decision. In his request for reconsideration, Complainant expresses his disagreement with the previous decision and reiterates arguments previously made and considered on appeal. The Commission emphasizes that a request for reconsideration is not a second appeal. 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. 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. 2021000948 remains the Commission's decision. There is no further right of administrative appeal on the decision of the Commission on this request. 2021001992 3 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 June 3, 2021 Date