[Redacted], Scott K., 1 Complainant,v.Lloyd J. Austin III, Secretary, Department of Defense (Defense Contract Audit Agency), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Feb 17, 2022

Appeal No. 2020004088 (E.E.O.C. Feb. 17, 2022)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Scott K.,1 Complainant, v. Lloyd J. Austin III, Secretary, Department of Defense (Defense Contract Audit Agency), Agency. Request No. 2022000589 Appeal No. 2020004088 Hearing No. 520-2019-00320X Agency No. DCAA-CASE-FD18-007 DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION Complainant timely requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) reconsider its decision in Scott K. v. Dep’t of Def., EEOC Appeal No. 2020004088 (Oct. 28, 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, a GS-0511-12 Senior Auditor at the North Central Branch Office, Field Detachment, Rochester Office in Rochester, New York, filed a formal EEO complaint alleging that the Agency subjected him to discrimination and a hostile work environment on the bases of sex (male) and in reprisal for prior protected EEO activity when: 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. 2022000589 2 1. In October 2017, his request to transfer off his supervisor’s (S1) team to another team was denied by his Branch Manager -- who is his second line supervisor (S2 - female); 2. Since October 1, 2017, S1 did not give him work-related training, adequately familiarize him with his assignment to the mobile-audit team, and he got less managerial guidance and attention than his female coworkers; 3. Around March 2018, S1 gave him an “Unacceptable” performance rating; 4. On April 3, 2018, he was placed on a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) which was implemented in a manner by S1 and S2 that would not allow him to succeed. For example, he did not receive any relevant training or guidance and was assigned unreasonable workloads during the PIP; 5. On or about July 9, 2018, he was “ambushed” by S1 and a female Supervisory Auditor of another team (Team 2 Supervisor) who informed him he failed his PIP and she was recommending his removal; 6. S1 assigned the female auditors on his team more desirable work-related tasks, first choice on assignments that were more interesting, and fewer high demand work related tasks than him; and 7. During 2018, he was treated differently by S2 when she did not investigate his report that a blue filmy goo was put on the backside of his desk drawer handle, but investigated an incident S1 reported happened to her around the same time. Following an investigation, Complainant requested a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). The AJ assigned to the matter issued a summary judgment decision finding that Complainant was not subjected to discrimination or reprisal as alleged. The Agency subsequently issued a final order fully adopting the AJ’s decision. In the appellate decision, the Commission affirmed the final order. 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. 2020004088 remains the Commission's decision. There is no further right of administrative appeal on the decision of the Commission on this request. 2022000589 3 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 February 17, 2022 Date