Armand L.,1 Complainant,v.Ryan D. McCarthy, Secretary, Department of the Army, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Nov 9, 2020

2020004806 (E.E.O.C. Nov. 9, 2020)

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

Armand L.,1
Complainant,

v.

Ryan D. McCarthy,
Secretary,
Department of the Army,
Agency.

Request No. 2020004806

Appeal No. 2019001554

Agency No. ARCCAD16JUN02381

DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

Complainant timely requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or
Commission) reconsider its decision in Armand L. v. Dep’t of the Army, EEOC Appeal No.
2019001554 (July 14, 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).

During the period at issue, Complainant worked as an Aircraft Mechanic Leader, WL-8852-10,
in the UH60 AVIM Section, UH60 RECAP Assembly Branch, UH60 RECAP Division,
Directorate of Aircraft Production, at Corpus Christi Army Depot (CCAD), Texas.2

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.

2 The acronyms “AVIM” and “RECAP” are not defined in the investigative file.
2020004806

2
On August 16, 2016, Complainant filed a formal EEO complaint claiming that the Agency
discriminated against him based on race (African-American) and disability (lower back and hip
pain and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder) when:

1. on May 20, 2016, the Agency denied Complainant’s request for reasonable
accommodation not to be required to rotate to the assembly line; and

2. on June 15, 2016, Complainant was sent home because there was no light duty
work.

The Agency issued a final decision on December 13, 2018, finding no discrimination.
Complainant appealed.

Our previous decision determined the Complainant had not established that the Agency failed to
provide him a reasonable accommodation. The decision determined that Complainant was unable
to perform the essential functions of his position due to his medical restrictions, including his
inability to lift 35 pounds unaided and make repairs where parts are difficult to reach.
Complainant’s supervisor verbally offered him a Transmission Worker Leader position that did
not required Complainant work on the aircraft assembly line. However, Complainant declined
the offer and requested to remain in his current position with the removal of the need to rotate
onto the assembly line as a reasonable accommodation. The appellate decision found that the
offer of reassignment was a form of reasonable accommodation and noted that Complainant
failed to indicate the Transmission Worker Leader position would have been an ineffective
accommodation.

The decision further found that the Agency’s decision to send Complainant home in June 2016
was not based on Complainant’s race or disability. The evidence showed the Agency searched
for another position for Complainant but could not find one that did not exceed Complainant’s
work restrictions. Consequently, Complainant was informed on June 15, 2016, that there were
no available work assignments within his medical limitations, and he had the option to request
annual, sick, advanced sick/annual leave, or leave without pay for the duration of his medical
limitations. Therefore, we concluded that there was no evidence of discriminatory animus toward
Complainant.

In the instant request for reconsideration, Complainant submits, through counsel, a statement
expressing disagreement with the appellate decision and reiterates arguments previously made on
appeal. However, 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.

2020004806

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. 2019001554 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

November 9, 2020
Date