0520120412
10-18-2012
Calvin Solomon, Complainant, v. John M. McHugh, Secretary, Department of the Army, Agency.
Calvin Solomon,
Complainant,
v.
John M. McHugh,
Secretary,
Department of the Army,
Agency.
Request No. 0520120412
Appeal No. 0120112264
Hearing No. 450-2010-00247X
Agency No. ARRRAD09OCT04558
DENIAL
Complainant timely requested reconsideration of the decision in Calvin Solomon v. Department of the Army, EEOC Appeal No. 0120112264 (April 13, 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).
The previous decision affirmed the Agency's finding that Complainant had not established that it discriminated against him on the basis of age when it did not select him for a permanent GS-5423-7 Sandblaster position. Specifically, the Agency explained that the computerized Civilian Personnel Advisory Center (CPAC) rated and ranked the candidates for the Sandblaster position, and within each group of candidates who received a particular score, candidates were placed in order based on Social Security Numbers.1 The Agency also stated that the Selecting Official offered the position to six candidates listed above Complainant on the CPAC Certificate. The Agency explained that three of the selectees were ranked higher than Complainant because, unlike Complainant, they received veterans' preference, and the remaining three selectees were placed higher on the referral list by the computer based on their Social Security Numbers.
In his request for reconsideration, Complainant argues that he had more experience as a Sandblaster than any of the other applicants for the position. Complainant further contends that the Agency's method of ranking candidates does not give proper consideration to candidates' experience, seniority, or work ethics. The Agency requests that we deny Complainant's request for reconsideration.
We note 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) (rev. Nov. 9, 1999), at 9-17; see, e.g., Lopez v. Dep't of Agriculture, EEOC Request No. 0520070736 (Aug. 20, 2007). Rather, a reconsideration request is an opportunity to demonstrate that the previous decision involved a clearly erroneous interpretation of material fact or law; or (2) will have a substantial impact on the policies, practices, or operations of the Agency. Complainant has not done so here. More particularly, Complainant has not shown that the previous decision erred in finding that Complainant failed to prove that the Agency's articulated non-discriminatory reasons for not selecting him were pretext for age discrimination.
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. 0120112264 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
October 18, 2012
Date
1 According to the Acting Equal Employment Manager, CPAC generally selects a random number to rank the candidates. CPAC then ranks the applicants relative to the proximity of the last digits of their social security number to the random number selected by the computer. Report of Investigation, Exhibit H, pp. 110, 111.
---------------
------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
------------------------------------------------------------
2
0520120412
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
2
0520120412