[Redacted], Lon G., 1 Complainant,v.Christine Wormuth, Secretary, Department of the Army, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Aug 16, 2021

Appeal No. 2020004242 (E.E.O.C. Aug. 16, 2021)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Lon G.,1 Complainant, v. Christine Wormuth, Secretary, Department of the Army, Agency. Request No. 2021002994 Appeal No. 2020004242 Agency No. ARPOM18MAR01154 DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION Complainant timely requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) reconsider its decision in Lon G. v. Dep’t of the Army, EEOC Appeal No. 2020004242 (Apr. 19, 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). Complainant, a Grade AD-00 Instructor and Assistant Professor at the Agency's Middle East School, Defense Language Institute, Foreign Language Center in The Presidio of Monterrey, California, filed a formal EEO complaint alleging that the Agency discriminated against him on the bases of race (Middle Eastern), sex (male), and religion (Muslim) when: (1) in late November 2017, Presidio of Monterrey Police Department Detective (DT), failed to take action when Complainant reported receiving threatening emails and voice messages in his work phone and email from his ex-girlfriend; (2) on March 18, 2018, DT seized Complainant's work computer, work iPad, and home computer without a warrant and against his will, due to the 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. 2021002994 2 alleged misuse of government equipment by watching pornographic materials, selling items on the web, and gambling on websites during work hours; (3) on March 21, 2018, DT threatened Complainant during an unscheduled investigation when DT stated Complainant was going to lose his job and asked if he really hated his ex-girlfriend that much; (4) in March 2018, DT discriminated against Complainant when DT created the “TITS” case to get Complainant fired after the report of a life-threatening message regarding the safety of his family and the US Armed Forces; (5) in March 2018, DT discriminated against Complainant when DT said that DT does not care, in reaction to Complainant's informing DT that he needed to take medication due to a serious illness, and disclosed investigation details to other parties and violated Complainant's privacy when Complainant told another party that Complainant was terminated from his job; (6) on March 20, 2018, DT harassed Complainant when DT came to Complainant's office and took his computer; and (7) in March 2018, DT harassed Complainant by accusing him of watching pornography on a work user account, and threatened Complainant's life in order to take a personal computer at Complainant's home. Following an investigation, the Agency issued a final decision finding that Complainant was not subjected to discrimination as alleged. In the appellate decision, the Commission affirmed the final decision. In his request for reconsideration, Complainant expresses his disagreement with the previous decision and reiterates arguments previously made and considered 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), 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. Complainant has not presented any persuasive evidence to support reconsideration of the Commission's 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. 2020004242 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. 2021002994 3 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 August 16, 2021 Date