[Redacted], Reuben D.., 1 Complainant,v.Lloyd J. Austin, III, Secretary, Department of Defense, (Defense Commissary Agency), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Jul 19, 2021

Appeal No. 2020002663 (E.E.O.C. Jul. 19, 2021)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Reuben D..,1 Complainant, v. Lloyd J. Austin, III, Secretary, Department of Defense, (Defense Commissary Agency), Agency. Request No. 2021002852 Appeal No. 2020002663 Hearing No. 570-2017-00207X Agency No. DeCA-00073-2016 DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION Complainant timely requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) reconsider its decision in Reuben D. v. Department of Defense (Defense Commissary Agency), EEOC Appeal No. 2020002663 (March 11, 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). During the period at issue, Complainant was employed by the Agency as a Material Handler (Forklift Operator) Leader, at the Germersheim Central Distribution Center in Germersheim, Germany. 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. 3 2021002852 On May 9, 2016, Complainant file a formal complaint alleging unlawful retaliation for prior protected activity when: (1) he received a Red Cross message that was improperly handled, resulting in a delay for emergency travel; (2) he became aware of an email placed in his official personnel folder with the potential to have a negative impact upon future employment opportunities; and (3) he was denied cross-training. After an investigation, Complainant requested a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). However, the AJ issued a decision by summary judgment finding no discrimination. The Agency issued a final order adopting the AJ’s finding of no discrimination. Complainant appealed, and the prior appellate decision affirmed the Agency’s final order. In the instant request for reconsideration, Complainant, through counsel, raises various arguments related to the AJ’s purported impropriety in issuing a decision without a hearing. We note, however, that similar arguments were clearly raised previously during the original appeal from the Agency’s final order. 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. The decision in EEOC Appeal No. 2020002663 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. 4 2021002852 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 July 19, 2021 Date