[Redacted], Lloyd H., 1 Complainant,v.David Pekoske, Acting Secretary, Department of Homeland Security (U.S. Secret Service), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Jan 22, 2021

Appeal No. 2020004598 (E.E.O.C. Jan. 22, 2021)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Lloyd H.,1 Complainant, v. David Pekoske, Acting Secretary, Department of Homeland Security (U.S. Secret Service), Agency. Request No. 2021000619 Appeal No. 2020004598 Agency No. HS-USSS-00938-2020 DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION Complainant timely requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) reconsider its decision in Lloyd H. v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., EEOC Appeal No. 2020004598 (Oct. 1, 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, a Senior Special Agent/Polygraph Examiner for the Agency’s Forensic Services Division in Washington, D.C., filed an EEO complaint alleging that the Agency subjected him to reprisal for prior protected EEO activity when, the former Special Agent in Charge made a misconduct allegation against Complainant, which was used to open an investigation against him and justify compelling him to submit to a polygraph examination between February 1 and February 6, 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. 2021000619 2 In its final decision, the Agency dismissed the formal complaint, pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.107(a)(2), for untimely EEO Counselor contact. On appeal, the Commission affirmed the Agency’s dismissal, finding that Complainant's EEO Counselor contact occurred approximately three years after the allegedly discriminatory event, and well beyond the 45-day time limit. Further, the Commission noted that Complainant's Freedom of Information Act requests illustrated that he suspected, or should have suspected, discrimination at an earlier time than when he argued he first suspected discrimination. In his request for reconsideration, Complainant reiterates the arguments he 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. We find that Complainant’s arguments do not 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. Accordingly, we find that Complainant has failed to demonstrate that the Commission should reconsider its appellate decision. 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. 2020004598 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. 2021000619 3 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 22, 2021 Date