[Redacted], Joseph B., 1 Complainant,v.Sonny Perdue, Secretary, Department of Agriculture (Farm Service Agency), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Jan 5, 2021

Appeal No. 2019005474 (E.E.O.C. Jan. 5, 2021)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Joseph B.,1 Complainant, v. Sonny Perdue, Secretary, Department of Agriculture (Farm Service Agency), Agency. Request No. 2021000520 Appeal No. 2019005474 Hearing No. 570-2018-01127X Agency No. FSA-2017-00516 DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION Complainant requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) reconsider its decision in Joseph B. v. Department of Agriculture (Farm Service Agency), EEOC Appeal No. 2019005474 (September 14, 2020). 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). In his underlying complaint, Complainant alleged that the Agency subjected him to race, color, and reprisal harassment when: (1) on an unspecified date, management issued him his 2017 performance appraisal without having provided him with his performance plan or mid-year review, therefore precluding him from knowing his performance expectations or how he was performing during the year; (2) since February 24, 2017, management did not respond to his claims of 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. 2021000520 2 harassment; (3) in January 2017, when introducing a new employee to the director, the director replied “maybe the new employee could make you start doing your work correctly”; (4) in July 2016, he was informed that management would try to “railroad” him into acting inappropriately during a leadership meeting; (5) in July 2016, during a meeting, management insulted him for ten minutes and then told him “you need to fight back”; (6) on unspecified dates, employees used the term “bitch slapped” and someone drew a swastika on a sheet of paper; (7) on unspecified dates, managers made it standard practice to make inappropriate personnel and procurement deals with employees; and (8) on unspecified dates, management inappropriately touched female employees. Following an investigation, Complainant requested a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). The AJ assigned to the case found that, after viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to Complainant, a decision without a hearing was appropriate as there were no genuine issues of material fact in dispute. The Agency’s final order adopted the AJ’s decision finding no discrimination. On appeal, the Commission affirmed the Agency’s final order. In his request for reconsideration, Complainant largely reiterates arguments made, and fully considered on appeal. 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. Accordingly, 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. 2019005474 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. 2021000520 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 5, 2021 Date