EEOC Appeal 2026002739

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Sector
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Monroe M.,1
Complainant,
v.
Marco Rubio,
Secretary,
Department of State,
Agency.
Request No. 2026002739
Appeal No. 2025001334
Agency No. DOS-0257-23
DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
Complainant timely requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
(EEOC or Commission) reconsider its decision in EEOC Appeal No. 2025001334
(May 26, 2026). 	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).
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.

2026002739	2
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a Special
Citizen Services Assistant at the Agency’s United States Consulate in Munich,
Germany. 	Complainant 	filed 	an 	EEO 	complaint 	alleging 	that 	the 	Agency
discriminated against him on the bases of national origin (American), sex (male),
and reprisal for protected activity when he was denied leave; he was terminated; and
he was informed that a tentative employment offer for an Office of Management
Specialist position was rescinded.
After completion of the investigation, the Agency issued a final decision in
accordance with Complainant’s request. The Agency’s final decision concluded that
Complainant did not establish that he was subjected to discrimination as alleged.
Complainant appealed and on appeal, in a decision dated May 26, 2026, the
Commission affirmed the Agency’s decision.
Complainant filed the instant request for reconsideration, arguing that the appellate
decision made a material error of fact because it stated that Complainant was
informed of the reason for his termination when he was not. 	The Agency did not
file a brief in response.
We reject Complainant’s arguments in his request for reconsideration as they
amount to nothing more than reiterating his previous arguments on appeal. 	We
emphasize 	that 	a request 	for 	reconsideration 	is 	not 	a second 	appeal 	to 	the
Commission. See Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive for 29
C.F.R. Part 1614 (EEO MD-110), Chap. 9, § VILA (Aug. 5, 2015). 	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. 	Contrary to Complainant’s argument in his
request for reconsideration, even if Complainant disagrees with the appellate
decision’s summary of the facts, that does not make the fact material as it is
ultimately irrelevant to the issue of whether Complainant established that the
Agency’s reason was a pretext for discrimination. 	At best, Complainant only
disagrees with the Agency’s stated reasons for its actions but there is no evidence in
the record beyond Complainant’s bare assertions to indicate that the Agency was
motivated by discriminatory or retaliatory animus.

2026002739	3
The Commission has repeatedly stated that mere assertions or conjecture that an
agency’s explanation is a pretext for intentional discrimination is insufficient
because subjective belief, however genuine, does not constitute evidence of pretext.
See Charlie O. v. Dep’t of the Navy, EEOC Appeal No. 2021002639 (March 29,
2022); Juliet B. v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No. 0120182519 (Oct. 8, 2019).
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.
2025001334 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 (P0124)
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 their 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
solediscretion to grant or deny these types of requests.

2026002739	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:
T. Gimbrere 	Acting Director's signature
T. Gimbrere, Acting Director
Office of Federal Sector
September 21, 2026
Date