Saeed U. Din, Complainant,v.Curt Herbert, Jr. Chairman, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionOct 2, 2001
05A10593 (E.E.O.C. Oct. 2, 2001)

05A10593

10-02-2001

Saeed U. Din, Complainant, v. Curt Herbert, Jr. Chairman, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Agency.


Saeed U. Din v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

05A10593

10-02-01

.

Saeed U. Din,

Complainant,

v.

Curt Herbert, Jr.

Chairman,

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,

Agency.

Request No. 05A10593

Appeal No. 01A11563

DENIAL OF REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

The complainant initiated a request to the Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission (EEOC or Commission) to reconsider the decision in Saeed

U. Din v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, EEOC Appeal No. 01A11563

(April 11, 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).

To prevail in a disparate treatment claim such as this, complainant

must satisfy the three-part evidentiary scheme fashioned by the Supreme

Court in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). He

must generally establish a prima facie case by demonstrating that

he was subjected to an adverse employment action under circumstances

that would support an inference of discrimination. Furnco Construction

Co. v. Waters, 438 U.S. 567, 576 (1978). The prima facie inquiry may be

dispensed with in this case, however, since the agency has articulated

legitimate and nondiscriminatory reasons for its conduct. See United

States Postal Service Board of Governors v. Aikens, 460 U.S. 711,

713-17 (1983). To ultimately prevail, complainant must prove, by a

preponderance of the evidence, that the agency's explanation is a pretext

for discrimination. St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502,

519 (1993).

The agency found that the reasons articulated by the agency for not

selecting complainant were not a pretext for discrimination on either

basis alleged. Complainant had submitted his application late, but the

selecting official accepted it anyway. But before complainant filed his

application, the agency's personnel office had already forwarded a merit

promotion certificate which contained the names of twelve candidates

deemed best qualified. Although the vacancy announcement indicated that

there would be multiple vacancies, the selecting official chose only one

candidate. The selectee had already been working in the public utilities

division as a technician, and had earned a college degree while doing so.

The selecting official reiterated that the selectee was the best candidate

for the position. He also noted that other applications were superior

to complainant's. Complainant failed to establish that the agency's

articulated reason was pretext for discrimination.

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. The decision

in EEOC Appeal No. 01A11563 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

_____10-02-01_____________

Date