[Redacted], Erich A., 1 Complainant,v.Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General, Department of Justice (Federal Bureau of Investigation), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Jan 31, 2023

Appeal No. 2022001584 (E.E.O.C. Jan. 31, 2023)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Erich A.,1 Complainant, v. Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General, Department of Justice (Federal Bureau of Investigation), Agency. Request No. 2022004342 Appeal No. 2022001584 Agency No. FBI-2021-00214 DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION Complainant requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) reconsider its decision in Erich A. v. Dep’t of Justice, EEOC Appeal No. 2022001584 (June 22, 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). Complainant filed a formal EEO complaint alleging he was discriminated against and subjected to sexual harassment on the bases of race (White), sex, age (YOB: 1985) and disability. His complaint did not, however, identify any actions that constituted either discrimination or sexual harassment. Instead, in the section of the complaint asking Complainant to explain how he was discriminated against, Complainant only stated “[the Agency] [d]iscriminated my [sic] how [I] talk and my age.” 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. 2022004342 2 The Agency dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.107(a)(1). Specifically, the Agency determined that Complainant was not a federal employee or applicant for federal employment and, therefore, lacked standing to file an EEO complaint. The Agency further determined that even if Complainant were an Agency employee or an applicant for Agency employment, the matter as articulated in his formal complaint was insufficient to establish a justiciable claim. In the appellate decision, the Commission affirmed the Agency’s dismissal decision. In his request for reconsideration, Complainant expresses his disagreement with the previous decision and largely reiterates arguments previously made on appeal. For example, Complainant again vaguely references being subjected to discrimination by someone from the Agency’s office in Newark. Complainant further stated that there were no witnesses to this incident and that the Agency has accused him of lying. 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’s arguments in his request do not demonstrate that our finding that he lacked standing to pursue an EEO complaint and that he failed to sufficiently identify any discriminatory act involved a clearly erroneous interpretation of material fact or law. Likewise, Complainant has not shown that our decision would have a substantial impact on the policies, practices, or operations of the Agency. Thus, we conclude that 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. 2022001584 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. 2022004342 3 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 January 31, 2023 Date