Marcus R. Walls, Complainant,v.Leon E. Panetta, Secretary, Department of Defense (Defense Logistics Agency), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionMar 6, 2012
0520110723 (E.E.O.C. Mar. 6, 2012)

0520110723

03-06-2012

Marcus R. Walls, Complainant, v. Leon E. Panetta, Secretary, Department of Defense (Defense Logistics Agency), Agency.




Marcus R. Walls,

Complainant,

v.

Leon E. Panetta,

Secretary,

Department of Defense

(Defense Logistics Agency),

Agency.

Request No. 0520110723

Appeal No. 0120100780

Hearing No. 450-2008-00350X

Agency No. DLAN-08-0706

DENIAL

Complainant timely requested reconsideration of the decision in Marcus

R. Walls v. Department of Defense, EEOC Appeal No. 0120100780 (August

12, 2011). 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

Complainant applied for the position of Crane Operator. On November 19,

2007, the selecting official informed him that he had not been chosen.

Complainant then asked the selecting official for contact information

for EEO, and the selecting official referred him to the bulletin board

outside his office. While Complainant was outside the office, a coworker

walked in to the selecting official’s office and asked whether he had

chosen someone for the position. The selecting official commented that

Complainant was going to file an EEO complaint. Complainant overheard

this comment and immediately informed the selecting official that he

had no right to discuss personal matters with anyone else.

Complainant filed a formal EEO complaint, alleging discrimination on

the basis of reprisal for prior EEO activity when: (1) the Agency did

not select him for the position of Crane Operator; (2) the selecting

official violated Complainant’s privacy by telling a coworker that

Complainant was going to file an EEO complaint.

The previous decision found substantial evidence in the record to

support an EEOC Administrative Judge’s (AJ) finding that the Agency

did not retaliate against Complainant for prior EEO activity. For the

nonselection, the Commission found that Complainant’s prior EEO

activity had occurred in 2004, and appeared to have no bearing on the

2007 hiring decision. Moreover, the Commission found that Complainant

failed to establish pretext, in part, because he did not show that he

was the clearly superior candidate compared to the selectee. Moreover,

the previous decision found that the fact that the selecting official

commented on Complainant’s intention to engage in future protected

EEO activity was not enough to establish retaliatory discrimination.

CONTENTIONS ON RECONSIDERATION

In his request for reconsideration, Complainant reiterates his previous

argument that the AJ’s “credibility determinations are inconsistent

with the facts and testimony presented in this case.” In particular,

the selecting official’s hearing testimony demonstrated that he

“viewed [Complainant] and the EEO process with such an extraordinary

amount of disdain that he was bound to carry out his discriminatory motive

of retaliation in his non-selection of [Complainant]. [The selecting

official’s] apparent despise of [Complainant] and the EEO process itself

shows his contempt to be deeply ingrained.” Complainant reiterates his

previous request for the Commission to review the record in its entirety.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

“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), at 9-17 (Nov. 9, 1999). Here, Complainant

essentially raises the same arguments that he had previously made on

appeal, which was to ask that we reweigh and substitute the AJ’s

credibility determinations with our own. Upon review, we determine

that the previous decision did not clearly err in finding substantial

evidence to support the AJ’s finding that Complainant could not

establish pretext. Therefore, 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. 0120100780 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

____3/6/12______________

Date

2

0520110723

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

Office of Federal Operations

P.O. Box 77960

Washington, DC 20013

2

0520110723