EEOC Appeal 2020001198

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Adalberto P., 1
Complainant,
v.
Sonny Perdue,
Secretary,
Department of Agriculture
(Animal and Plant Health Inspection Services),
Agency.
Request No. 2020001198
Appeal No. 2019001331
Agency No. APHIS201800162
DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
Complainant 	requested 	that 	the 	Equal 	Employment 	Opportunity 	Commission 	(EEOC 	or
Commission) reconsider its decision in EEOC Appeal No. 2019001331 (November 5, 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).
In 	his 	underlying 	complaint, 	Complainant 	alleged 	that 	the 	Agency 	subjected 	him 	to
discrimination and harassment on the bases of national origin (Mexican) and age when:
1. 	On October 5, 2017, he was issued an unfavorable rating on his Annual Performance
Evaluation;
2. 	On October 4, 2017, he was denied an opportunity to work on the Aerial Delivery System
(ADS) project; and
3. 	He was subjected to various incidents of harassment, including but not limited to 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.

2020001198	2
a. 	On January 5, 2018, a management official sent him an unsolicited text message
and asked him a series of questions about his active EEO complaint and gave him
literature regarding the EEO process;
b. 	On 	December 	13 	and 	18, 	2017, 	he 	received 	questionable 	unsolicited 	text
messages from a manager and the manager informed him that the managers were
“working on something against him;”
c. 	On October 4, 2017 and other dates, his supervisor told him he was getting “too
old” and “too slow” for the ADS project and they “needed people who were
faster” than him to serve on the project; and
d. 	On October 2, 2015, he was issued a Letter of Instruction.
Following an investigation and development of the record, the Agency’s issued a final decision
finding that Complainant failed to prove that the Agency subjected him to discrimination as
alleged. On appeal, the Commission affirmed the Agency’s final decision. Specifically, the
Commission found that that Complainant failed to establish pretext or that the incidents, even if
true and taken together, were severe or pervasive to establish actionable harassment.
In his request for reconsideration, Complainant largely reiterates arguments made, and fully
considered on appeal. Complainant also attached letters authored by Complainant addressing his
allegations to the EEO Counselor in the informal counseling stage of his EEO complaint.
Additionally, Complainant argues he is presenting new evidence to support his claim regarding a
Letter of Reprimand. 2 In response, the Agency argues his request for reconsideration should be
denied because Complainant has failed to meet the criteria for reconsideration. The Agency
states Complainant submits with his reconsideration request allegedly new evidence in the form
of unsupported self-serving statements and adds a new allegation related to a Letter of
Reprimand. The Agency argues neither are proper when raised for the first time on appeal. We
agree with the Agency.
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. 2019001331 remains the
Commission's decision. There is no further right of administrative appeal on the decision of the
Commission on this request.
2 To the extent that Complainant is raising a new claim of discrimination regarding a Letter of
Reprimand, he may raise such claims with an Agency EEO counselor in order to initiate another
complaint.

2020001198	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
August 24, 2020
Date