[Redacted], Jon H., 1 Complainant,v.Denis R. McDonough, Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Nov 4, 2021

Appeal No. 2020003493 (E.E.O.C. Nov. 4, 2021)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Jon H.,1 Complainant, v. Denis R. McDonough, Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs, Agency. Request No. 2021004156 Appeal No. 2020003493 Hearing No. 550-2018-00523X Agency No. 20DR-0010-2018100541 DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION Complainant requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) reconsider its decision in Jon H. v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Appeal No. 2020003493 (June 15, 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 January 29, 2018, Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging that the Agency discriminated against him on the bases of race (Caucasian) and sex (male) when: 1. On December 1, 2016, the Responsible Management Official, (RMO), composed an annual performance evaluation for Complainant which contained false information. 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. 2021004156 2 2. On June 15, 2017, the RMO charged Complainant with annual leave after a meeting with her. 3. On June 16, 2017, the RMO refused Complainant's request for 5 hours of annual leave. 4. On June 22, 2017, the RMO denied Complainant's request for annual leave and accused Complainant of not responding to an email. 5. On June 23, 2017, the RMO refused to certify Complainant’s timecard, and insisted that Complainant take compensatory time. When Complainant refused, she charged him absent without leave. 6. Beginning in February 2016, Complainant was subjected to additional incidents of harassment. Complainant alleges that the RMO: told him to stay out of her office; accused him of trying to overthrow the RMO; undermined his authority; called him a liar; ignored Complainant; did not enter Complainant's office for over one year; lists Complainant's subordinate in the RMO’s out-of-office reply as the person to contact in her absence; “puts Complainant down;” fails to give Complainant clear expectations; directed Complainant not to engage with Human Resources; stated that Complainant lacks integrity; has no trust in him; and wanted Complainant to backdate information regarding a moving incentive for a newly hired employee. Complainant requested a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). The AJ issued a decision without a hearing finding no discrimination. The Agency issued its final order implementing the AJ’s decision. Complainant appealed, and the Commission’s prior decision affirmed the Agency’s decision. 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. 2020003493 remains the Commission's decision. There is no further right of administrative appeal on the decision of the Commission on this request. 2021004156 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 November 4, 2021 Date