[Redacted], Charles G., 1 Complainant,v.Ryan D. McCarthy, Secretary, Department of the Army, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Nov 10, 2020

Appeal No. 2019005412 (E.E.O.C. Nov. 10, 2020)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Charles G.,1 Complainant, v. Ryan D. McCarthy, Secretary, Department of the Army, Agency. Request No. 2020004828 Appeal No. 2019005412 Hearing No. 420-2017-00138X Agency No. ARREDSTON15DEC04925 DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION Complainant timely requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) reconsider its decision in Charles G. v. Dep’t of the Army, EEOC Appeal No. 2019005412 (May 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). Complainant, a Logistics Management Specialist at the Agency’s Headquarters Army Material Command facility in Redstone Arsenal, Alabama, filed an EEO complaint in which he alleged that the Agency discriminated against him on the bases of race (African-American), sex (male), and color (Black) when: 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. 2020004828 2 1. On November 24, 2015, he was notified that he was not selected for the position of Supervisory Logistics Management Specialist, GS-0346-14, Job Announcement Number SCBK158842401505650, located in the U.S Army Material Command Logistics Support Activity; 2. The Panel Lead did not recuse himself as the panel lead in the selection process knowing that the selectee was a member of his staff, giving the appearance that the selectee was pre-selected for the Supervisory Logistics Management Specialist position, directly influencing the selecting official, resulting in Complainant's non- selection; and 3. The Panel Lead directly influenced the selecting official to change the selection criteria to support the selectee's resume, resulting in Complainant's non-selection. Following an investigation, Complainant requested a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). The AJ assigned to the case issued a decision granting summary judgment in favor of the Agency, which the Agency fully implemented in its final order. Complainant appealed, and in our previous decision, we affirmed the final order finding that Complainant was not subjected to discrimination as alleged. 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. The Commission finds that the arguments raised by Complainant in the instant request for reconsideration were largely raised in his previous appeal, fully considered, and rejected. Complainant has not shown that the AJ erred in finding that he failed to set forth sufficient facts showing that there was a genuine issue still in dispute. The Commission finds that the AJ’s decision appropriately indicated that the record was fully developed; that the AJ considered all of the record evidence in the light most favorable to Complainant; and that the evidence established that Complainant failed to show that he was subjected to discrimination as alleged. In sum, 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 that he was subjected to discrimination. 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. 2019005412 remains the Commission's decision. There is no further right of administrative appeal on the decision of the Commission on this request. 2020004828 3 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 10, 2020 Date