[Redacted], Olin M., 1 Complainant,v.Charlotte Bertrand, Acting Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Feb 22, 2021

Appeal No. 2019003561 (E.E.O.C. Feb. 22, 2021)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Olin M.,1 Complainant, v. Charlotte Bertrand, Acting Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, Agency. Request No. 2021000897 Appeal No. 2019003561 Hearing No. 410-2016-00394X Agency No. 2015-0105-HQ DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION Complainant timely requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) reconsider its decision in EEOC Appeal No. 2019003561 (October 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). Complainant worked as a GS-13 Research Hydrologist at the Agency’s National Exposure Research Laboratory in Athens, Georgia. Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging that the Agency discriminated against him on the bases of religion (Islam) and reprisal when: 1. His first line supervisor (S1A) and another first line supervisor (S1B) conducted a review of his submitted work products; 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. 2021000897 2 2. On September 2, 2015, S1A asked a contractor to write reports to replace the reports Complainant had prepared; 3. On October 28, 2015, S1A gave him an unfair performance evaluation; 4. S1A and a co-worker gave away $123,000 research funding that Complainant’s task had received on February 28, 2015. Our prior appellate decision affirmed the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Administrative Judge’s (AJ) decision by summary judgment which found in favor of the Agency, concluding Complainant failed to prove his discrimination claims. In the decision, the AJ considered Complainant’s request to amend his complaint to include the bases of race (African), color (black), and national origin (Somali). The AJ also noted it was not appropriate to consolidate the instant complaint and another complaint that was pending with a different AJ. The AJ found that Complainant failed to prove his discrimination and harassment claims. Our prior decision concluded that Complainant did not establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that any of the actions taken by the Agency were motivated by discriminatory animus. In his lengthy request for reconsideration, Complainant expresses his disagreement with the previous decision. Complainant makes many arguments he has made previously. He expresses his disagreement with numerous statements from the prior decision and reargues the merits of his case. He again requests that the instant case be consolidated with an appeal that is currently pending (Appeal No. 2021000796). The AJ already determined that it was not appropriate to consolidate the cases, after discussing the matter with the AJ who was handling the other complaint, and we see no reason to consolidate at this juncture. 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. 2019003561 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. 2021000897 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 February 22, 2021 Date