[Redacted], Hassan B., 1 Complainant,v.John P. Roth, Acting Secretary, Department of the Air Force, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

May 25, 2021

Appeal No. 2021000255 (E.E.O.C. May. 25, 2021)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Hassan B.,1 Complainant, v. John P. Roth, Acting Secretary, Department of the Air Force, Agency. Request No. 2021002272 Appeal No. 2021000255 Agency No. 5N1L2000884 DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION Complainant requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) reconsider its decision in Hassan B. v. Dep’t of the Air Force, EEOC Appeal No. 2021000255 (February 2, 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). On September 17, 2020, Complainant filed a formal complaint alleging that the Agency subjected him to discriminatory harassment on the bases of national origin and in reprisal for prior EEO activity when: a. On or about July 15 to August 2018, the Commander referred to Complainant as being part of “Monmouth Mafia.” 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. 2021002272 2 b. On or about March 6, 2017, the Commander used the term “Monmouth Mafia” to senior level military and civilian managers of the 87th Security Forces Squadron, 87th Mission Support Group, 87th Air Base Wing Legal Office, and the 87th Force Support Squadron Civilian Personnel Office, knowing that the term referred to the aggrieved, and after he had previously been advised that the use of the term was derogatory and offensive to the aggrieved based on his Italian ancestry. c. On or about March 6, 2017, to August 2018, Colonel TK, Commander 87th Support Mission Support Squadron, failed to prevent, investigate, or act upon information or personal knowledge regarding the term “Monmouth Mafia” being used by KD. Complainant also alleged he was subjected to reprisal for prior EEO activity when: d. On or about July 22, 2018, the Commander reassigned Complainant from the position of Supervisory Detective, GS-12, (Chief of S2 Investigations) to the position of Supervisory Police Officer, GS-12, (Assistant Operations Officer, S3). The Agency dismissed the complaint for untimely EEO Counselor contact as well as for failure to state a claim. Complainant appealed, and the Commission’s prior decision affirmed the Agency’s decision on the grounds that Complainant failed to timely contact an EEO Counselor. In his request, Complainant provides no evidence to warrant granting his request. The Commission emphasizes 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) (Aug. 5, 2015), at 9-18; 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. 2021000255 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. 2021002272 3 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 May 25, 2021 Date