05A10994
09-17-2002
Neil O. Schiche, Complainant, v. Gale A. Norton, Secretary, Department of the Interior, Agency.
Neil O. Schiche v. Department of the Interior
05A10994
09-17-02
.
Neil O. Schiche,
Complainant,
v.
Gale A. Norton,
Secretary,
Department of the Interior,
Agency.
Request No. 05A10994
Appeal No. 01A10618
Agency No. LLM-92-012
DENIAL OF REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
The complainant initiated a request to the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (EEOC or Commission) to reconsider the decision in Neil
O. Schiche v. Department of the Interior, EEOC Appeal No. 01A10618
(July 17, 2001). EEOC Regulations provide that the Commission may, in
its discretion, 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).
Complainant maintained that the agency breached their May 4, 1992,
settlement agreement which contained the following provisions:
1. Term one is not reproduced, as it was not an issue in dispute;
2. That complainant attend the Congressional Operations Institute
during FY 1993;
3. That complainant be nominated from the Buffalo Resources Area to
compete for Management Leadership training; and
4. That complainant's employment with the Bureau of Land Management
will remain free from retaliation by management. However, this does
not diminish supervisory or management responsibilities to address any
future performance or conduct issues.
Complainant maintained that the agency violated provisions (2) and (4) of
the settlement agreement. The previous decision found that with respect
to provision (2), waiting nearly eight years to allege noncompliance with
the settlement agreement was untimely. With respect to provision (4), the
previous decision found that complainant's complaint of reprisal regarding
his reassignment to a new duty location should have been treated as
a new complaint. It found that even assuming arguendo, that provision
(4) was related to the 1992, non-retaliation provision, we found that
complainant's contention of noncompliance with the settlement agreement
was untimely since he was notified of the reassignment in August 1999,
and did not allege noncompliance until January 2000, some five months
after the fact.
In his request for reconsideration, complainant contends that
respect to provision (2), the previous decision was correct from a
strict interpretation. He maintains that his only fault was believing
management's statements. Complainant also maintains that the previous
decision failed to address provision (3) and that with respect to
provision (4), his issues of reprisal and retaliation with respect to
his reassignment were timely.
After a review of the complainant's request for reconsideration, 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 since
complainant has failed to show that the appellate decision involved a
clearly erroneous interpretation of material fact or law or that the
decision will have a substantial impact on the policies, practices
or operations of the agency. Further, we find that with respect to
complainant's contentions, the record does not reveal that provision (3)
was in issue but even assuming arguendo that the matter was in issue,
waiting nearly eight years to allege noncompliance with the settlement
agreement is untimely. With respect to provision (4), complainant was
advised in the previous decision that his assertion that his reassignment
violated the settlement agreement was untimely. He was advised however
that any allegation of reprisal including the reassignment was to be
treated as a new complaint. Therefore, the decision in EEOC Appeal
No. 01A10618 remains the Commission's final decision. There is no
further right of administrative appeal on the decision of the Commission
on this 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
____09-17-02______________
Date