EEOC Appeal 2020001385

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Walton Z., 1
Complainant,
v.
Kevin K. McAleenan,
Acting Secretary,
Department of Homeland Security
(Transportation Security Administration),
Agency.
Request No. 2020001385
Appeal No. 2019001408
Hearing No. 570-2017-00216X
Agency No. HS-TSA-25825-2016
DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
Complainant timely requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or
Commission) reconsider its decision in Walton Z. v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., EEOC Appeal No.
2019001408 (Nov. 19, 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, an applicant for employment at the Agency's Office of Finance and Administration
in 	Arlington, 	Virginia, 	filed 	the 	underlying 	complaint 	wherein 	he 	claimed 	that 	he 	was
discriminated against on the bases of his race (Caucasian), sex (male), disability (back/hip,
speech/hearing, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, learning disability) and age (over 40) when he
was not selected for an Executive Assistant position in the Office of Finance and Administration.
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.

2020001385	2
Following an investigation, Complainant requested a hearing before an EEOC Administrative
Judge (AJ). The AJ issued a decision by summary judgment in favor of the Agency finding no
discrimination. The AJ observed that Complainant’s application materials revealed that he lacked
the requisite one year of specialized experience at the next lowest grade level in a related field
necessary to qualify for the position. The AJ noted that this resulted in Complainant’s name being
omitted from the external certificate list that was forwarded to the selecting official. The Agency
subsequently issued a final order wherein it fully implemented the AJ’s decision.
On appeal, the Commission affirmed the Agency’s final order. 	Therein, we determined that
Complainant failed to show that the Agency’s reasons for its selection decision were pretextual.
Accordingly, the Commission found that Complainant was not subjected to discrimination as
alleged.
In his request for reconsideration, Complainant expresses his disagreement with the appellate
decision and reiterates many arguments previously made on appeal. 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), Chap. 9 § VI.A (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. 	Upon review of Complainant’s request to
reconsider, we observe that Complainant has mainly repeated the arguments he presented on
appeal. 	We find that Complainant has not presented any persuasive evidence to support
reconsideration of the Commission’s decision. 	Complainant has failed to establish that he was
discriminated against on the bases of either his race, sex, disability, or age with respect to the
selection at issue.
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. 2019001408 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.

2020001385	3
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 2, 2020
Date