[Redacted], Mauricio C., 1 Complainant,v.Robert Wilkie, Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Jan 11, 2021

Appeal No. 2020001539 (E.E.O.C. Jan. 11, 2021)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Mauricio C.,1 Complainant, v. Robert Wilkie, Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs, Agency. Request No. 2021000358 Appeal No. 2020001539 Hearing No. 420-2017-00094X Agency No. 200I-0619-2016102967 DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION Complainant timely requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) reconsider its decision in EEOC Appeal No. 2020001539 (September 10, 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 relevant time, Complainant worked for the Agency as a Police Officer, GS-0083-6, in Tuskegee, Alabama. On July 18, 2016, Complainant filed a formal EEO complaint alleging that the Agency discriminated against him based on race (white) when, on February 26, 2016, he was terminated during his probationary period. 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. 2021000358 2 After an investigation, the Agency provided Complainant with a copy of the report of investigation and notice of his right to request a hearing before an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Administrative Judge (AJ). Complainant timely requested a hearing. However, over Complainant’s objections, the AJ granted summary judgment in the Agency’s favor on September 11, 2019. In her decision, the AJ noted that Complainant, a newly hired officer, was notified that failure to successfully complete the Police Academy would result in termination. A memorandum dated January 18, 2016, from the Director of the Law Enforcement Training Center (LETC) Academy to the Chief, and copied to Complainant, indicated that he did not successfully complete the academics standard for the 2-week test and would not be awarded a certificate of completion. The memorandum also stated that the LETC standards require each Officer to score a minimum score of 75% on each weekly test. If the officer fails, he or she is given a remedial test on the same material to which the officer needs a score of 75% or better. Complainant failed his first test with a score of 72% and his remedial test with a score of 64%. Based on his failure to pass the academic portion of his training, the Chief issued the termination notice to Complainant on February 26, 2016. In EEOC Appeal No. 2020001539, we concluded that the evidence of record fully supported the AJ’s decision that Complainant’s allegations of discrimination had not been proven. In his request for reconsideration of that decision, Complainant essentially repeats the same arguments made and considered during his original appeal. We emphasize that a request for reconsideration is not a second appeal to the Commission. See EEO MD-110, Ch. 9, § VII.A. 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. 2020001539 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. 2021000358 3 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 11, 2021 Date