Titus M.,1 Complainant,v.Nancy A. Berryhill, Acting Commissioner, Social Security Administration, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Jun 14, 2018

0520180239 (E.E.O.C. Jun. 14, 2018)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013

Titus M.,1
Complainant,

v.

Nancy A. Berryhill,
Acting Commissioner,
Social Security Administration,
Agency.

Request No. 0520180239

Appeal No. 0120160047

Agency No. CHI-13-0435-SSA

DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

Complainant timely requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or
Commission) reconsider its decision in EEOC Appeal No. 0120160047 (January 12, 2018). 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 filed a complaint in which he alleged that he had been subjected to disparate
treatment and a hostile work environment because of his national origin, color, disability, age, and
previous EEO activity. He identified twelve incidents as comprising his claim. Complainant
requested a hearing at the conclusion of the investigation, but subsequently withdrew his request.
Consequently, the Agency issued a final decision on the merits in which it found that Complainant
failed to meet his burden of proof with respect to any of the incidents at issue in his complaint.

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.
0520180239

2
In our previous decision, we affirmed. As to his disparate treatment claim, we agreed that the
Agency had articulated legitimate and nondiscriminatory reasons for all twelve incidents which
Complainant failed to rebut with evidence of pretext. Regarding his harassment claim, we found
that Complainant failed to establish the necessary causal connection between the incidents and any
of the bases under which he claimed statutory protection. In response to Complainant’s allegation
that the investigation was improperly conducted, we found no improprieties in the handling of the
investigation.

The Commission emphasizes 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), at 9-18 (August 5, 2015); see, e.g., Lopez v. Department of Agriculture, EEOC
Request No. 0520070736 (August 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. He has not presented any argument or evidence tending to
establish the existence of either reconsideration criterion. He merely reargues his appeal on the
merits, raising the same contentions that we rejected in our previous 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. 0120160047 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.
0520180239

3
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

June 14, 2018
Date