[Redacted], Vaughn C., 1 Complainant,v.Dat Tran, Acting Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Feb 2, 2021

Appeal No. 2019005211 (E.E.O.C. Feb. 2, 2021)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Vaughn C.,1 Complainant, v. Dat Tran, Acting Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs, Agency. Request No. 2021000261 Appeal No. 2019005211 Hearing No. 480201800221X Agency No. 200P-0593-2017102871 DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION Complainant timely requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) reconsider its decision in Vaughn C. v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Appeal No. 2019005211 (Aug. 31, 2020). 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 was a GS-11 Communications Specialist, at the VA Medical Center in Las Vegas, Nevada, filed a formal complaint alleging that the Agency subjected him to discrimination and a hostile work environment on the bases of race (“49.8% Caucasian, 38.4% African American, and 11.8% other”), sex (male), disability (100% disabled veteran), and age (mid-to-late 50s) when: 1. On unspecified dates, Management failed to resolve the issues as brought forward by Complainant; 2. From October 2012 to May 25, 2017, Complainant was provided unequal workload distribution and expectations by Management; 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. 2021000261 2 3. From March 1, 2014 through September 30, 2015, Complainant performed additional duties as the acting VISN 22 MyHealthVet (MHV) Coordinator, a position equivalent to the GS-12 grade; 4. On or about December 5, 2014, Complainant applied for, and was subsequently not selected for a Program Specialist Position, Vacancy ID No. 1268661; 5. On or about September 2, 2015, Complainant was not selected for a Program Specialist position advertised under Job Announcement No. VHA59315AJ1475438JM; 6. On or about September 2, 2015, Complainant was not selected for a Program Specialist position advertised under Job Announcement No. VHA59315AJ1437537EMY; 7. In October 2016, Complainant did not receive a bonus; 8. In October 2016, Complainant received a lower than justified FY16 performance evaluation; 9. From May 26, 2017, and ongoing, Complainant was provided unequal workload distribution and expectations by management; 10. On May 11, 2017, Complainant initiated his retirement process due to the ongoing hostile work environment; 11. As of June 10, 2017, Complainant has been denied documented work experience as proof by the VISN Operations Officer, while serving as the VISN 22 MHV Coordinator (GS-12); and 12. On December 11, 2013, Complainant was informed by Management that his application for the Fiscal Year 2014 VISN 21/22 Leadership Development Institute (“LDI”) Program was not accepted and subsequently he was not provided a reason for the non-acceptance of his application by Management. Following an investigation, Complainant requested a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). The AJ assigned to the matter issued a summary judgment decision in favor of the Agency finding no discrimination or hostile work environment. The Agency issued a final order fully implementing the AJ’s decision. Complainant appealed, and, in Vaughn C. v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Appeal No. 2019005211 (Aug. 31, 2020), the Commission affirmed the Agency’s final order. In his request for reconsideration, Complainant argues that the Commission made numerous erroneous findings of material fact in the appellate decision. 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), at 9-18 (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 evidence establishing that the Commission erred in finding that the AJ properly granted summary judgment in this matter. Moreover, the Commission finds that Complainant has not presented any evidence to support reconsideration of the Commission’s finding that he failed to show he was subjected to discrimination. 2021000261 3 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. 2019005211 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. 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 2, 2021 Date