[Redacted], Patrick S., 1 Complainant,v.Lloyd J. Austin III, Secretary, Department of Defense (Defense Intelligence Agency), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Feb 14, 2022

Appeal No. 2021004034 (E.E.O.C. Feb. 14, 2022)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Patrick S.,1 Complainant, v. Lloyd J. Austin III, Secretary, Department of Defense (Defense Intelligence Agency), Agency. Request No. 2022000561 Appeal No. 2021004034 Agency No. DIA-2021-00029 DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION Complainant timely requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) reconsider its decision in Patrick S. v. Dep’t of Def., EEOC Appeal No. 2021004034 (Oct. 13, 2021). 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, an Intelligence Planner at MacDill Air Force Base, Florida, filed a formal complaint alleging that the Agency subjected him to discrimination in reprisal for prior protected EEO activity when: 1. From March 25 to April 8, 2021, the EEO Counselor assigned to Complainant's informal EEO complaint, Agency No. DIA-2021-00013, refused to acknowledge his request to review her Counselor's report; 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. 2022000561 2 2. On April 8, 2021, the EEO Counselor failed to include timely-submitted exhibits related to his complaint in her Counselor's Report; 3. On April 8, 2021, the EEO Counselor falsely stated he was non-cooperative in the EEO complaint process in an attempt to have his complaint officially dismissed; 4. On April 8, 2021, the EEO Counselor colluded with the Associate General Counsel, in having his complaint dismissed by adding documents to his file; 5. On April 8, 2021, the EEO Counselor stopped corresponding with him and failed to complete her Counselor's Report on time; and 6. On June 11, 2021, after reviewing the EEO Counselor's Report, he discovered the EEO Counselor and Assistant General Counsel lied during their counseling interview and colluded against him by claiming they discussed Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) as a means to resolve his complaint. The Agency dismissed the formal complaint, pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.107(a)(8), for alleging dissatisfaction with the processing of a previously filed complaint. In the appellate decision, the Commission affirmed the dismissal decision. In his request for reconsideration, Complainant expresses his disagreement with the previous decision and reiterates arguments previously made on appeal. The Commission emphasizes that a request for reconsideration is not a second appeal. 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. Complainant has not presented any persuasive evidence to support reconsideration of the Commission's decision. 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. 2021004034 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. 2022000561 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 February 14, 2022 Date