[Redacted], Sylvester D., 1 Complainant,v.Pete Buttgieg, Secretary, Department of Transportation, (Federal Aviation Administration), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Dec 21, 2021

Appeal No. 2020001622 (E.E.O.C. Dec. 21, 2021)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Sylvester D.,1 Complainant, v. Pete Buttgieg, Secretary, Department of Transportation, (Federal Aviation Administration), Agency. Request No. 2021004642 Appeal No. 2020001622 Agency No. 201827583FAA05 DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION Complainant timely requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) reconsider its decision in Sylvester D. v. Department of Transportation, EEOC Appeal No. 2020001622 (July 19, 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 relevant time, Complainant worked for the Agency as an Airway Transportation System Specialist at the Dallas/Fort Worth Air Traffic Control Tower, West Terminal Radar Approach Control in Dallas, Texas. On November 28, 2017, Complainant file a formal complaint, claiming discrimination based on race, color, disability, age, and in reprisal for prior protected activity when: he received a letter of 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 2021004642 proposed suspension on or about October 4, 2017; he received a proposed suspension from January 18, 2018 through January 31, 2018; he was placed on Absent Without Leave status for 10 hours when he was on workers’ compensation; he was harassed by such events as being sent emails and text messages when out of the office designed to harass him, he was assigned administrative duties but they were already completed, and when he informed his supervisor that someone needed to pick him up, the supervisor would not sent anyone, and his supervisor sent the police to his home when Complainant did not report to work after completion of a suspension. Complainant subsequently amended his formal complaint adding a claim that in March 2018, he received a proposed termination package effective April 28, 2018. Following an investigation, Complainant initially requested a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge but withdrew the request. Thereafter, the Agency issued a final decision finding no discrimination was established. Complainant appealed. In EEOC Appeal No. 2020001622, we affirmed the Agency’s final decision finding no discrimination. In the instant request for reconsideration, Complainant submits a brief expressing disagreement with the appellate decision. The arguments raised in the instant request, however, were either raised on appeal from the Agency’s final decision or could have been raised below. We note that the matters raised in the instant request replicate arguments raised below, which were addressed in detail in the prior appellate decision. 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. 2020001622 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. 4 2021004642 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 December 21, 2021 Date