EEOC Appeal 2020001038

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Alden G.,1
Complainant,
v.
Andrew M. Saul,
Commissioner,
Social Security Administration,
Agency.
Request No. 2020001038
Appeal No. 0120170849
Hearing No. 471-2015-00130X
Agency No. CHI-15-0111-SSA
DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
Complainant timely requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or
Commission) reconsider its decision in Alden G. v. Soc. Sec. Admin., EEOC Appeal No.
0120170849 (Feb. 15, 2019). 	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 GS-11 Claims Representative (Bilingual) at the Agency’s District Office in
Pontiac, Michigan, filed an EEO complaint alleging that the Agency discriminated against him
and subjected him to a hostile work environment on the bases of his race (Mexican-American) and
in reprisal for prior protected EEO activity when:
1. 	On or about October 31, 2014, Complainant overheard a conference call wherein
management was attempting to solicit statements from the staff in order to label him a
bully;
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.

2020001038	2
2. 	On unspecified dates, Complainant’s co-workers have destroyed his work in order to
sabotage him;
3. 	On November 17, 2014, Complainant was notified that his request to be paid
administrative leave for the dates of November 3-5, 2014, had been denied; and
4. 	Beginning in November 2014, and continuing, Complainant has been assigned walk-
ins and phone duty, and other employees are assigning appointments in his name when
he is not on the schedule for those particular assignments.
Following an investigation, Complainant requested a hearing before an EEOC Administrative
Judge (AJ). The AJ assigned to the matter dismissed Complainant’s hearing request as a sanction
for Complainant’s conduct. Specifically, Complainant and the Agency agreed to a protective order
which prohibited Complainant from using certain information provided by the Agency to
Complainant “for any purpose except as necessary for the prosecution of the instant litigation.”
The protective order applied to documents produced by the Agency to “Complainant and his
counsel by [the Agency] in the Agency’s Response to Complainant’s Requests for Production,
Interrogatories and Requests to Admit, as well as any information provided during depositions,
and any information derived therefrom, which may contain confidential, sensitive, and protected
information subject to protection . . .”
Complainant acknowledged that he violated the protective order when he used an Agency-
produced document as an exhibit during a separate arbitration hearing. 	The AJ noted that
Complainant 	blacked 	out 	language 	the 	Agency 	stamped 	on 	the 	document, 	which 	read
“CONFIDENTIAL – SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER,” and Complainant did not request
modification of the protective order to enable him to use the document. Further, the AJ recognized
Complainant and his representative to be repeat litigants in the EEO process, and therefore they
should have been aware of the importance of following orders. Therefore, the AJ dismissed the
hearing request.
The matter was remanded to the Agency for a final decision. The Agency issued a final decision
finding that Complainant had not been subjected to discrimination, reprisal, or a hostile work
environment as alleged.
In the appellate decision, the Commission found that the AJ did not abuse her discretion in
dismissing Complainant’s hearing request. The Commission also affirmed the Agency’s finding
that Complainant did not show he was subjected to discrimination, reprisal, or a hostile work
environment as alleged.

2020001038	3
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
In the instant request for reconsideration, Complainant contends that he “agreed to a protective
order in order to preserve the integrity of agency and unknown individuals;” however, “the
evidence was clear that the protective order memos served no purpose, no merit, and no substantial
substance to protect.” Accordingly, Complainant requests that the Commission grant his request
for reconsideration.
The Commission emphasizes that a request for reconsideration is not a second appeal to the
Commission. 	EEO MD-110, at 9-18; 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. 	Complainant has not demonstrated that the Commission’s prior decision
involved a clearly erroneous interpretation of fact or law. 	Accordingly, Complainant has not
presented any persuasive evidence to support reconsideration of the Commission’s 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. 0120170849 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.

2020001038	4
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 22, 2020
Date