U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 King W.,1 Complainant, v. Dr. Mark T. Esper, Secretary, Department of the Army, Agency. Request No. 0520180469 Appeal Nos. 0120140848 & 0120150803 Hearing No. 420-2013-00203X Agency No. ARCEMOBIL12SEP04346 DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION Complainant timely requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) reconsider its decision in EEOC Appeal Nos. 0120140848 and 0120150803 (May 18, 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 worked as a Quality Assurance Representative, Electrical Engineer, GS-850-12, for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in the Mobile District, Gulf Coast Area Office, at Eglin Air Force Base in Florida. Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging he was discriminated against on the bases of race (African American) and color (Black) when: (1) in August 2012, the Gulf Coast Engineer ("S1") allegedly commented that he would no longer pay for training for Complainant because he did not want Complainant to have more credentials than he; and (2) in March 2011 and September 4, 2012, S1 denied Complainant's request for continuing education related to his Building Industry Credentials Service, International (BICSI) Registered Communications Distribution Designer (RCDD) certification. Complainant amended his complaint to allege that he was retaliated against when on March 1, 2013, his supervisor included a comment on his FY 2012 annual evaluation that said Complainant "needs to develop teamwork skills to create more collaborative relationships" in an effort to justify not providing him further training related to his RCDD professional certification. During the investigation of his complaint, Complainant requested that the complaint be processed as a class complaint. Complainant stated that the class was comprised of "Black Male Engineers serving as Quality Assurance Representatives in Construction Division Field Offices of South Atlantic Division, US Corps of Engineers." The complaint was referred to an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). The AJ directed the parties to engage in discovery and Complainant, as the class representative, was ordered to submit a brief discussing how the proposed class met class certification requirements. Neither party initiated discovery and Complainant did not submit the required brief. Thus, the AJ determined that the complaint did not meet the criteria for class certification. The Agency was ordered to continue processing Complainant's individual complaint of discrimination. It did so and when Complainant did not request a hearing, issued a final Agency decision concluding that Complainant failed to prove he was subjected to discrimination as alleged. Our previous decision consolidated two appeals, one regarding the class action, and the other the Agency's final decision on Complainant's individual complaint. The decision found that the putative class did not meet the prerequisites to certify a class and affirmed the Agency's final order adopting the AJ's denial of class certification. As to Complainant's individual complaint, the decision found that Complainant failed to show that the Agency's reasons for its actions were a pretext for discrimination. In his request for reconsideration, Complainant expresses his disagreement with the previous decision, primarily with the issue of training. We emphasize that a request for reconsideration is not a second appeal to the Commission. See EEO MD-110, Ch. 9, § VII.A. 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 Nos. 0120140848 and 0120150803 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 September 12, 2018 __________________ Date 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 0520180469