0520120634
02-08-2013
Harold T. Dunn, Complainant, v. Ray H. LaHood, Secretary, Department of Transportation (Federal Aviation Administration), Agency.
Harold T. Dunn,
Complainant,
v.
Ray H. LaHood,
Secretary,
Department of Transportation
(Federal Aviation Administration),
Agency.
Request No. 0520120634
Appeal No. 0120091489
Hearing No. 410-2007-000387X-LL
Agency No. 200721150FAA03
DENIAL
Complainant timely requested reconsideration of the decision in Harold T. Dunn v. Department of Transportation, EEOC Appeal No. 0120091489 (August 10, 2012). EEOC Regulations provide that the Commission may, in its discretion, grant a request to reconsider any previous Commission decision 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(b).
BACKGROUND
In the underlying case, Complainant alleged that the EEOC Administrative Judge erred when she issued a decision finding that Complainant failed to establish that the Agency discriminated against him: (1) on the bases of sex and race by enforcing a dress code policy that was allegedly discriminatory on its face; (2) on the bases of age when it issued him a sick leave abuse letter; and (3) in reprisal for prior EEO activity when it issued him a sick leave abuse letter, denied him administrative duties, and placed him on AWOL. The AJ found that Complainant failed to establish that the Agency had discriminated against him with respect to any of the asserted bases and issues. The AJ reasoned that while the dress code may have been unfair, it was not discriminatory. With respect to the issuance of the sick leave abuse letter, the AJ found that Complainant failed to demonstrate that he was treated less favorably than any similarly situated employee. The AJ found Complainant's arguments regarding the Agency's denial of administrative duties meritless, noting that Complainant had not disputed the Agency's argument that no administrative duties were available at the time he made the request.
The Appellate decision affirmed the AJ's decision finding no discrimination, reasoning that the decision was supported by substantial evidence of record. The appellate decision noted that Complainant raised new allegations of discrimination on appeal, and reminded Complainant that his appeal was not the appropriate place in which to raise these allegations.
ARGUMENTS ON RECONSIDERATION
In his request for reconsideration, Complainant requests that the Commission reconsider its appellate decision because the decision was based on "erroneous interpretation of material facts or law". In his request, Complainant reiterates many of the same arguments that he raised on appeal.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
Complainant is reminded that a "request for reconsideration is not a second appeal to the Commission." Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive for 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 (EEO MD-110), Ch. 9 � VII.A. (Nov. 9, 1999). Because Complainant has not put forth any arguments which the Commission finds to be material to the outcome of the underlying decision, or that were not previously considered in rendering the underlying decision, the Commission finds that Complainant has not demonstrated that the underlying decision involved a clearly erroneous interpretation of material fact or law. Neither has Complainant argued or demonstrated that the underlying decision would have a substantial impact on the policies, practices, or operations of the Agency.
CONCLUSION
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(b), and it is the decision of the Commission to deny the request. The decision in EEOC Appeal No. 0120091489 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 (Z0610)
If you decide to file a civil action, and if you do not have or cannot afford the services of an attorney, you may request from the Court that the Court appoint an attorney to represent you and that the Court also permit you to file the action without payment of fees, costs, or other security. See Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. � 2000e et seq.; the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 29 U.S.C. �� 791, 794(c). The grant or denial of the request is within the sole discretion of the Court. Filing a request for an attorney with the Court does not extend your time in which to file a civil action. Both the request and the civil action must be filed within the time limits as stated in the paragraph above ("Right to File a Civil Action").
FOR THE COMMISSION:
______________________________
Carlton M. Hadden, Director
Office of Federal Operations
___2/8/13_______________
Date
2
0520120634
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
2
0520120634