05a01117
02-27-2001
Arthur L. Teague, Complainant, v. Gregory R. Dahlberg Acting Secretary, Department of the Army , Agency.
Arthur L. Teague v. Department of the Army
05A01117
02-27-01
.
Arthur L. Teague,
Complainant,
v.
Gregory R. Dahlberg
Acting Secretary,
Department of the Army ,
Agency.
Request No. 05A01117
Appeal No. 01A03090
Agency No. BOAHF0981010190
Hearing No. 130-99-8177X
DECISION ON REQUEST TO RECONSIDER
On July 31, 2000, Arthur L. Teague (complainant) timely initiated a
request to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to reconsider the
decision in Arthur L. Teague v. Louis Caldera, Secretary, Department of
the Army, EEOC Appeal No. 01A03090 (July 5, 2000). EEOC regulations
provide that the Commission may, in its discretion, reconsider any
previous decision where the party demonstrates that: (1) the previous
decision involved a clearly erroneous interpretation of material fact or
law; or (2) the decision will have a substantial impact on the policies,
practices or operation of the agency. 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405(b).<1>
For the reasons set forth below, the complainant's request is denied.
The issue presented is whether complainant's request meets the criteria
for reconsideration.
Complainant filed a formal complaint in October 1998, claiming that the
agency discriminated against him on the basis of race when he received
a "successful level 2" rating for 1997-1998. After an investigation,
complainant requested hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ),
who issued a summary judgment decision, finding no discrimination.
The agency issued a final order agreeing with the AJ's decision, and,
on appeal, the previous decision affirmed the AJ.
Complainant worked as a Heavy Mobile Equipment Repairer at the agency's
Anniston Depot (Alabama). The previous decision agreed with the AJ's
decision, finding that the agency stated legitimate, nondiscriminatory
reasons for its rating, i.e., complainant utilized his time poorly,
in response to which complainant did not demonstrate that the agency's
decision was based on prohibited considerations or animus.
Complainant has filed a request that the Commission reconsider the
previous decision. Complainant stated that no one else held the same job,
that he is more senior and trained others who received higher ratings,
that the performance standards of the job changed, that he received an
"exceptional" rating for the previous rating period, that he was not
counseled on his job performance, and that he had 240 hours of leave
while others receiving higher ratings had a smaller leave balance.
The agency filed comments arguing that complainant's request did not meet
the criteria for reconsideration and that complainant did not challenge
the validity of his rating.
In order to merit the reconsideration of a prior Commission decision,
the requesting party must submit written argument that tends to establish
that at least one of the criteria of 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405(b) is met.
The Commission's scope of review on a request for reconsideration is
narrow, and it is not a form of second appeal. Lopez v. Department of
the Air Force, EEOC Request No. 05890749 (September 28, 1989); Regensberg
v. USPS, EEOC Request No. 05900850 (September 7, 1990).
None of the factors identified by complainant demonstrate that
the agency's reason for giving him a level 2 rating--poor time
utilization--was not the true reason, nor do they show that the
agency's reason was based on an illegal consideration, i.e., his race.
It is not material what rating he previously received, whether he was
counseled, that he had longer service and trained others, or what his
leave balance was. In addition, we note that complainant did not address
the agency's reason for his rating or show that he had other than poor
time utilization.
CONCLUSION
After a review of the complainant's request for reconsideration, the
agency's reply thereto, the previous decision, and the entire record,
the Commission finds that the complainant's request fails to meet any
of the criteria of 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405(b), and it is the decision of
the Commission to deny the complainant's request. The decision of
the Commission in EEOC Appeal No. 01A03090 (July 5, 2000) remains
the Commission's final decision. There is no further right of
administrative appeal from a decision of the Commission on a request
for reconsideration.
STATEMENT OF COMPLAINANT'S RIGHTS - ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
COMPLAINANT'S RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (P0900)
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 (Z1199)
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 that the Court appoint
an attorney to represent you and that the Court 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 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
___02-27-01_______________
Date
1On November 9, 1999, revised regulations governing the EEOC's federal
sector complaint process went into effect. These regulations apply
to all federal sector EEO complaints pending at any stage in the
administrative process. Consequently, the Commission will apply
the revised regulations found at 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 in deciding the
present appeal. The regulations, as amended, may also be found at the
Commission's website at www.eeoc.gov.