[Redacted], Mac K., 1 Complainant,v.Ryan D. McCarthy, Secretary, Department of the Army, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Mar 5, 2021

Appeal No. 2020001604 (E.E.O.C. Mar. 5, 2021)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Mac K.,1 Complainant, v. Ryan D. McCarthy, Secretary, Department of the Army, Agency. Request No. 2021000381 Appeal No. 2020001604 Agency No. ARMYER18OCT03909 DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION Complainant timely requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) reconsider its decision in Mac K. v. Dep’t of the Army, EEOC Appeal No. 2020001604 (Sept. 21, 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). During the period at issue, Complainant was an applicant for employment at the Agency’s facility in Fort Myer, Virginia. On October 8, 2018, Complainant filed a formal EEO complaint, that was later amended, claiming that the Agency discriminated against him based on his race (Afro-American/Native American), color, age (58), and in reprisal for prior protected EEO activity 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. 2021000381 2 1. on September 17, 2018, Complainant was notified that he was not selected for the position of Security Guard, GS-0085-06; and 2. his response to questions asked during his interview for the position at issue was misinterpreted and led to his non-selection. The Agency issued a final decision on November 26, 2019, finding no discrimination. Complainant appealed. The previous appellate decision determined that the Agency articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for not selecting Complainant for the position at issue. The decision noted that all candidates were asked the same interview questions, the interview panel rated the responses, and independently determined which candidate to recommend for hire. Additionally, the decision explained that all panel members found Complainant’s response to one interview question unsatisfactory. Complainant was asked, “what is your greatest weakness?” and Complainant responded, “women.” One panel member indicated that Complainant’s response was “unprofessional,” and all panel members unanimously decided not to recommend Complainant for hire. Therefore, the prior decision determined that there was no evidence that the Agency’s decision was pretextual for discrimination. 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. 2020001604 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. 2021000381 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 March 5, 2021 Date