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

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Oct 5, 2022

Appeal No. 2020005477 (E.E.O.C. Oct. 5, 2022)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Malcom N.,1 Complainant, v. Christine Wormuth, Secretary, Department of the Army, Agency. Request No. 2022002836 Appeal No. 2020005477 Hearing No. 530-2016-00218X Agency No. ARPICATI5APR01517 DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION Complainant timely requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) reconsider its decision in Malcom N. v. Department of the Army, EEOC Appeal No. 2020005477 (March 31, 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 relevant time, Complainant worked for the Agency as an Information Technology Specialist in Picatinny Arsenal, New Jersey. 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. 2 2022002836 On June 30, 2015, Complainant filed a formal complaint, claiming discrimination based on race, national origin, religion, color and age. Specifically, Complainant claimed that his co-workers made comments regarding Complainant’s age; a co-worker mentioned to the team that Complainant came from a small company with “insignificant” experience; he had been given the major portion of work related to Systems, Applications and Products systems; a co-worker changed his LORA numbers without informing him; in October 2014, a co-worker provided contradictory information to Complainant and to leadership, regarding an assignment; he was misguided with technical details, setting him up for failure on a project; a co-worker and a contractor yelled, cursed, and humiliated Complainant in the presence of team members; a co- worker asked Complainant to leave a product demonstration; he was threatened with termination if he did not sign his mid-point evaluation; his request for time to study for the “CompTia Security+” examination was denied; and he was terminated from his position during his probationary period. Following an investigation, Complainant requested a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). The assigned AJ issued a summary judgment decision, finding no discrimination. The Agency thereafter issued a final action implementing the AJ’s decision. In EEOC Appeal No. 2020005477, the Commission affirmed the Agency’s final action implementing the AJ’s summary judgment decision. In the instant request for reconsideration, Complainant raises numerous arguments which either were addressed, or which could have been addressed, on appeal from the Agency’s final action. We note that much of his arguments are in essence a reiteration of arguments made previously, which were expressly addressed in the prior decision. 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. 2020005477 remains the Commission's decision. There is no further right of administrative appeal on the decision of the Commission on this request. 3 2022002836 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. 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 5, 2022 Date