[Redacted], Matt A., 1 Complainant,v.Elaine L. Chao, Secretary, Department of Transportation (Federal Aviation Administration), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Jan 12, 2021

Appeal No. 2019003424 (E.E.O.C. Jan. 12, 2021)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Matt A.,1 Complainant, v. Elaine L. Chao, Secretary, Department of Transportation (Federal Aviation Administration), Agency. Request No. 2020005184 Appeal No. 2019003424 Agency No. 2018-27833-FAA-03 DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION Complainant timely requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) reconsider its decision in Matt M. v. Dep’t of Transportation, EEOC Appeal No. 2019003424 (Aug. 25, 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 worked as a National Airspace System (NAS) Specialist, Airway Transportation System Specialist at the Agency’s Atlanta Large Terminal Radar Approach Control (TRACON) in Atlanta, Georgia. On June 4, 2018, Complainant filed a formal EEO complaint claiming that he was discriminated against based on race (African- American), sex (male), religion (other), color (Black), age (66), and in reprisal for prior protected EEO activity when, on February 14, 2018, Complainant learned that he was not selected for 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. 2020005184 2 position of NAS Operations Manager advertised under Vacancy Number ASO-AT0-18-8005- 54868. The Agency issued a final decision on April 25, 2019, finding no discrimination. Complainant appealed. In EEOC Appeal No. 2019003424, we affirmed the finding that no discrimination was proven. The decision determined that responsible Agency management articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for Complainant’s non-selection for the position at issue and Complainant did not show that these reasons were pretextual. The decision noted that there were two vacancy positions available from the job announcement. Selectee 1 and Selectee 2 received the two highest scores, 64 and 56 respectively, by the interview panel. Additionally, Selectee 1 had a bid package scores of 53.5, 71, 67.6 and Selectee 2 had a bid package score of 63, 85, and 54. As a result of their high interview and high bid package scores, Selectee 1 and Selectee 2 were chosen to fill the vacancy positions. In contrast, Complainant had the fifth highest interview score, 50, and had a bid package score of 55, 61, and 51. Moreover, testimony from the interview panel members reflected that Complainant did not provided as detailed responses to the interview questions which resulted in him receiving a lower interview score. The decision also addressed Complainant’s claims that the interview panel deviated from interview procedures and denied him the ability to use reference materials during his interview. The record reflects that there was no corroborating evidence, aside from Complainant’s assertions, to support these allegations. The decision noted that the record included a copy of the “ground rules” that were read to each of the interviewed candidates indicating that candidates were only allowed to have a pen and paper while in the interview room. The decision further noted there was no evidence of an intent to discover a protected EEO bases or otherwise demonstrate bias when the interview panel asked the candidates to provide information about themselves and explain why they were interested in the position. Consequently, the decision determined that Complainant failed to demonstrate that his non-selection was based on discriminatory animus. In the instant request for reconsideration, Complainant submits a statement expressing disagreement with the appellate decision and reiterates arguments previously made and considered 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. 2020005184 3 The decision in EEOC Appeal No. 2019003424 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 January 12, 2021 Date