[Redacted], Sidney S., 1 Complainant,v.Christine Wormuth, Secretary, Department of the Army, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Apr 25, 2022

Appeal No. 2022000616 (E.E.O.C. Apr. 25, 2022)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Sidney S.,1 Complainant, v. Christine Wormuth, Secretary, Department of the Army, Agency. Request No. 2022001631 Appeal No. 2022000616 Agency No. ARPOM21JUL02200 DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION Complainant timely requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) reconsider its decision in EEOC Appeal No. 2022000616 (January 10, 2022). 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 as an Associate Profession of Hebrew, AD05, at the Agency’s Defense Language Institute Foreign Language Center (DLIFC), Presidio of Monterey (POM) in Monterey, California. Complainant contacted an Agency EEO counselor to initiate the EEO complaint process. Subsequently, Complainant and the Agency entered into a settlement agreement providing, in pertinent part, that: (1) the Agency would rescind the abrupt curtailment of Complainant’s 12- month appointment by moving his Not-to-Exceed date from July 23, 2021, back to October 2, 2021; and, (2) while employed in his current position, in determining future eligibility for 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. 2022001631 2 vacancies in Arabic Schools (ME I and ME II) and [University General Education (UGE)], Complainant would be considered as qualified and eligible as other candidates currently within or outside of Arabic Schools at UGE. By letter to the Agency, Complainant alleged that the Agency was in breach of the settlement agreement, specifically alleging that the Agency failed to comply with Term (2) when he was not included in emails presenting job opportunities for Arabic teachers. Complainant further alleged that he was not informed that the Associate Provost held an Arabic School Town Hall to discuss realignment plans that would allow current Arabic teachers’ term appointments to be extended; he was not sent an email containing a job vacancy and he was only able to apply because a colleague forwarded an email containing the job vacancy; and, when he interviewed for a Levantine-Arabic teaching leader position, although he was tested and certified as linguistically competent in Levantine-Arabic, the DLIFLC was unwilling to allow him to fairly compete for a position with a 12-month appointment. The Agency issued a decision concluding it was not in breach of the agreement. Complainant appealed. In EEOC Appeal No. 2022000616, the Commission affirmed the Agency’s finding of no breach of the agreement. In so doing, the Commission found that, with respect to Term 2, the Agency was simply obligated to consider Complainant to be as qualified and eligible as other candidates and there was no evidence that this did not occur. The Commission noted that, while Complainant argued that he did not receive emails about job vacancies, the settlement agreement did not specify that Complainant should be informed of or contacted about job vacancies, and, while Complainant submitted evidence indicating that he was not made aware of vacancies, he did not submit evidence to show that he was not considered as qualified or eligible as other candidates for job vacancies. In the instant request for reconsideration, we have carefully reviewed Complainant’s arguments and determine that the matters either were raised or could have been raised below. We note that during the original appeal from the Agency’s final order, Complainant presented numerous arguments, many of which have been replicated in the instant request. 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. 2022000616 remains the Commission's decision. There is no further right of administrative appeal on the decision of the Commission on this request. 2022001631 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 April 25, 2022 Date