U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Junior T.,1 Complainant, v. Antonio J. Mayorkas, Secretary, Department of Homeland Security (Immigration and Customs Enforcement), Agency. Request No. 2021001204 Appeal No. 2020003339 Hearing No. 480-2018-00371X Agency No. HS-ICE-01750-2017 DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION Complainant timely requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) reconsider its decision in Junior T. v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., EEOC Appeal No. 2020003339 (Oct. 19, 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). Complainant worked as a Deportation Officer for the Agency’s Enforcement and Removal Operations at the Los Angeles District Office, in Los Angeles, California. Complainant filed a formal complaint alleging that the Agency subjected him to discrimination and a hostile work environment on the bases of race (African-American) and color (Black) when: 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. 2021001204 2 1. In November 2016, the Assistant Field Director (Director) changed Complainant's work schedule; 2. In November 2016, the Director told Complainant that he had three years to retirement and that Director would not change; 3. In December 2016, Complainant was written up three times for tardiness; 4. In December 2016, Complainant received multiple daily emails from the Director directing him to complete specific tasks in an unreasonable amount of time; 5. On December 2, 2016, Complainant became aware that a Supervisory Detention and Deportation Officer (SDDO) directed a Contract Security Officer not to assist him; 6. In January 2017, the Director yelled at Complainant in front of others saying, “[Complainant], step away from the tank;” 7. On February 13, 2017, an SDDO sent Complainant a text message stating, “You late.;” 8. On February 20, 2017, an SDDO sent Complainant a text message at 5:53 a.m. and asked if he was running late; 9. On February 21, 2017, Complainant was reported as being Absent Without Leave (AWOL); 10. In February 2017, an SDDO Announced in a briefing that there was a new Vehicle Control Officer (VCO) on board, but the SDDO failed to identify Complainant as the VCO; 11. On March 14, 2017, Complainant was verbally reprimanded for being two minutes late for a briefing; and 12. On May 5, 2017, Complainant was verbally reprimanded for being on YouTube at work, while other employees were also on YouTube that day. Complainant was also reprimanded, in writing, for the same incident. Following an investigation, Complainant requested a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). The AJ assigned to the matter determined sua sponte that the formal complaint did not warrant a hearing, and over Complainant’s objections, issued a summary judgement decision finding that Complainant failed to show that he was subjected to unlawful discrimination by a preponderance of the evidence. 2021001204 3 The Agency subsequently issued a final order fully implementing the AJ’s decision. Complainant appealed, and, in Junior T. v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., EEOC Appeal 2020003339 (Oct. 19, 2020), the Commission affirmed the Agency’s final order. In his request for reconsideration, Complainant expresses disagreement with the Commission’s previous decision and reiterates arguments previously raised 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), at 9-18 (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 evidence establishing that the Commission erred in finding that the AJ properly granted summary judgment in this matter. Moreover, the Commission finds that Complainant has not presented any evidence to support reconsideration of the Commission’s finding that he failed to show that he was subjected to discrimination. 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. 2020003339 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. 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. 2021001204 4 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 March 5, 2021 Date
