[Redacted], Wilbur W., 1 Complainant,v.Pete Buttigieg, Secretary, Department of Transportation, (Federal Aviation Administration), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Oct 5, 2022

Appeal No. 2020004124 (E.E.O.C. Oct. 5, 2022)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Wilbur W.,1 Complainant, v. Pete Buttigieg, Secretary, Department of Transportation, (Federal Aviation Administration), Agency. Request No. 2022002814 Appeal No. 2020004124 Hearing No. 471-2017-00034X Agency No. DOT-2016-26647-FAA-04 DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION Complainant timely requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) reconsider its decision in Wilbur W. v. Department of Transportation, EEOC Appeal No. 2020004124 (March 24, 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). 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 2022002814 During the relevant time, Complainant worked for the Agency as an Air Traffic Control Specialist in Lansing, Michigan. On March 11, 2016, Complainant filed a formal complaint, claiming discrimination based on race, disability and in reprisal for prior protected activity. Complainant claimed that in August 2014, his protected medical information was spread throughout his work site, causing inappropriate questions; he did not timely receive training notes; he was subject to inappropriate conversation and racially charged comments; he was denied the opportunity to make changes to training team notes and plans; management improperly tried to contain his training team to only a few co-workers; a new manager needlessly brought up the past, changed an assigned shift start, did not conduct training, and record of a meeting was not found in his training folder; he had not been able to train during his Saturday morning shift, he did not receive documentation in a timely manner; a Training Review Board recommended termination of training and he thereafter received a proposed termination of training letter, his training was terminated; a recommendation not to retain him was delivered, but was rescinded; and he was issued a Notice of Removal, which was also rescinded. Following an investigation, Complainant requested a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). The assigned AJ issued a summary judgment decision, finding no discrimination. The Agency thereafter issued a final order implementing the AJ’s decision. In EEOC Appeal No. 2020004124, the Commission affirmed the Agency’s final order implementing the AJ’s summary judgment decision. In the instant request for reconsideration, Complainant raises arguments which either were addressed, or could have been addressed, on appeal from the Agency’s final order. Complainant’s primary focus relates to the timeliness of the Agency’s Motion for Summary Judgement (Motion), as well as the timeliness of Complainant’s response to this Motion. This matter is in essence, a reiteration of arguments he had raised below. 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. 2022004124 remains the Commission's decision. There is no further right of administrative appeal on the decision of the Commission on this request. 4 2022002814 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 October 5, 2022 Date