[Redacted], Les B., 1 Complainant,v.Pete Buttigieg, Secretary, Department of Transportation (Federal Aviation Administration), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Oct 6, 2022

Appeal No. 2021005167 (E.E.O.C. Oct. 6, 2022)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Les B.,1 Complainant, v. Pete Buttigieg, Secretary, Department of Transportation (Federal Aviation Administration), Agency. Request No. 2022003205 Appeal No. 2021005167 Hearing No. 532-2018-00065X Agency No. 2017-27343-FAA-04 DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION Complainant timely requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) reconsider its decision in Les B. v. Dep’t of Transportation, EEOC Appeal No. 2021005167 (May 19, 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). During the period at issue, Complainant worked as a Principal Operations Inspector, GS-14, at the Flight Standards District Office (FSDO) in Columbus, Ohio. On April 17, 2017, Complainant filed a formal EEO complaint claiming that the Agency subjected him to reprisal for prior protected EEO activity when on, February 27, 2017, 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. 2022003205 2 Complainant was placed on administrative leave indefinitely. Additionally, Complainant was told that he was to be available by telephone at his residence during his regular duty hours, and that if he wanted to leave his residence, he needed supervisory approval. Following a hearing, an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ) issued a decision on August 11, 2021, finding no discrimination. Because the Agency did not issue a final order adopting the AJ’s finding of no discrimination, the AJ’s decision became the Agency’s final decision. In EEOC Appeal No. 2021005167, the Commission affirmed the AJ’s decision. In the prior decision, the Commission determined that the record reflected that Complainant was suspended pending the completion of an internal investigation where on-duty accusations had been made against Complainant. The prior decision further explained that Complainant was still in paid status while serving the suspension, and therefore, the Labor Relations Specialist explained that Complainant was required to be on call and available during his regular work hours. The prior decision determined that Complainant failed to prove that the Agency’s articulated reasons for issuing the suspension were retaliatory. In the instant request for reconsideration, Complainant submits a statement expressing disagreement with the appellate decision and reiterates arguments previously made on appeal. However, we emphasize 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), 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. 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. 2021005167 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. 2022003205 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 October 6, 2022 Date