EEOC Appeal 2020001863

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Travis H., 1
Complainant,
v.
Dr. Mark T. Esper,
Secretary,
Department of Defense
(Defense Contract Management Agency),
Agency.
Request No. 2020001863
Appeal No. 0120171641
Agency No. P7-16-0053
DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
Complainant timely requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or
Commission) reconsider its decision in EEOC Appeal No. 0120171641 (Nov. 26, 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).
The record reflects the following chronology of events. 	During the period at issue, Complaint
worked as a Contract Administrator, GS-1102-11, at the Agency’s Central Region facility in
Dallas, Texas. 	On May 17, 2016 Complainant filed a formal EEO complaint alleging that the
Agency discriminated against hm on the bases of disability (sleep apnea, anxiety, depression, ad
Crohn’s disease) and in reprisal for prior protected EEO activity 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.

2020001863	2
1. Between August 2013 and October 31, 2014, S1 prevented Complainant from obtaining
a reasonable accommodation; 2
2. On December 30, 2014, S1 indicated that Complainant needed to be more dependable
in his time and attendance:
3. 	On December 31, 2015, S1 rated Complainant as fully successful on his annual
appraisal;
4. 	On February 16, 2016, he learned that S1 did not select him for the GS-11012-12
Contract 	Administrator 	position 	advertised 	under 	Vacancy 	Announcement
SWH815EHAP78662771501675;
5. On May 16, 2016, S2 denied his reasonable accommodation request;
6. Beginning in September 2014, he was subjected to a hostile work environment when:
a. 	On September 9, 2014, S1 counseled Complainant regarding his late arrivals;
b. 	In September 2014, S1 threatened to take away his maxi-flex schedule;
c. 	On June 1, 2015, S3 dissuaded him from filing an EEO complaint;
d. 	In June 2015, S1 began to micromanage and monitor Complainant more; and
e. 	Between February 2, 2016 and March 2016, S2 requested additional medical
information regarding Complainant’s reasonable accommodation request.
After an investigation, the Agency provided Complainant with a copy of the report of investigation
and notice of his right to request a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). 	In
accordance 	with 	Complainant’s 	request, 	the 	Agency issued 	a 	final 	decision, 	finding 	no
discrimination.
Complainant filed an appeal with the Commission. In our initial decision, we found that
Complainant failed to establish, by a preponderance of evidence, that he was subjected to unlawful
discrimination.
Complainant filed a request for reconsideration. 	Complainant reiterates many of his arguments
previously raised below. 	Specifically, Complainant reasserts that he was denied a reasonable
accommodation.
In response, the Agency requests that we deny Complainant’s request. The Agency asserts that
Complainant failed to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he was subjected to
unlawful discrimination.
2 S1 retired in January 2016, and the EEO Investigator was unable to reach S1, so S1 did not
participate in the investigation of Complainant’s EEO complaint.

2020001863	3
Upon review of the record, we find that OFO’s initial decision properly found that Complainant
failed to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he was subjected to unlawful
discrimination. We remind complainant that a "request for reconsideration is not a second appeal
to the Commission." Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive 110 for 29 C.F.R.
Part 1614 (Aug. 5, 2015), Chapter 9. We further note that Complainant requested a final decision
(rather than a hearing before an EEOC AJ); thus, we do not have the benefit of an AJ’s credibility
determinations after a hearing or for an AJ to oversee further development of the record.
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. 0120171641 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.

2020001863	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
August 31, 2020
Date