[Redacted], Marlin B., 1 Complainant,v.Thomas W. Harker, Acting Secretary, Department of the Navy, Agency.Download PDFEqual Employment Opportunity CommissionMay 20, 2021Appeal No. 2020004571 (E.E.O.C. May. 20, 2021) Copy Citation U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Marlin B.,1 Complainant, v. Thomas W. Harker, Acting Secretary, Department of the Navy, Agency. Request No. 2021001842 Appeal No. 2020004571 Agency No. 18-63134-00528 DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION Complainant requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) reconsider its decision in Marlin B. v. Dep’t of the Navy, EEOC Appeal No. 2020004571 (Dec. 17, 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). On July 9, 2019, the parties entered into a settlement agreement resolving Complainant’s complaint. The settlement provided, in pertinent part, that: (6a) Within 60 days of the effective date of this agreement, the Agency agrees to designate two subject matter liaisons to be assigned as part of their job duties to work with Complainant regarding reasonable accommodations and assistive technology needs. 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. 2021001842 2 (6b) Within 30 days from the effective date of this Agreement, the Agency agrees to identify a neutral third-party expert (Assistive Technology Evaluator) to evaluate the essential functions, the assistive technology needs, the computer and electronic equipment presently in place that are compatible with the Agency’s computer systems and information security requirements, and to identify effective and appropriate assistive technology reasonable solutions. . . . (6e) Complainant will be allowed to meet with his immediate supervisor to discuss work, get required feedback to perform his position, and to clarify management directives. Complainant’s need to meet with his supervisor to discuss work shall not be utilized as a negative basis for any performance assessment. (6f) Complainant will be allowed additional time to perform work assignments. . . . (6h) Within 60 days of the effective date of this Agreement, the Agency shall submit documentation to effect Complainant’s promotion to GS-12, Step 3, with backpay from September 16, 2017. . . . (9) Complainant understands and agrees that he shall give written notice of any claimed violation, breach, or failure to perform by the Agency any promises described in this Agreement to the Commander…within 30 calendar days of the date Complainant knew or should have known of the alleged noncompliance. On April 22, 2020, Complainant claimed that the Agency was in breach of the settlement agreement when it failed to provide him all of the assistive technology he requested, failed to hire additional staff, did not do his mid-year assessment review, and failed to comply with the time requirements. The Agency determined that it was in compliance of the terms of the settlement agreement. Complainant appealed, and the Commission’s prior decision affirmed the Agency’s determination. In his request, Complainant provides no evidence to warrant granting his request. The Commission emphasizes 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) (Aug. 5, 2015), at 9-18; 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. 2021001842 3 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. 2020004571 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. 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 May 20, 2021 Date Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation