0520140488
03-13-2015
Complainant v. Jacob J. Lew, Secretary, Department of the Treasury (U.S. Mint), Agency.
Complainant
v.
Jacob J. Lew,
Secretary,
Department of the Treasury
(U.S. Mint),
Agency.
Request No. 0520140488
Appeal No. 0120123306
Hearing No. 530-2011-00248X
Agency No. MINT-11-0167-F
DENIAL
Complainant timely requested reconsideration of the decision in EEOC Appeal No. 0120123306 (June 26, 2014).1 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(c).
In our previous decision, we affirmed the AJ's decision granting summary judgment in favor of the Agency. We found that the Agency articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for Complainant's nonselection to the Coin Production Manager position. Namely, the members of the interview panel felt that Complainant did not show the level of leadership ability, specificity and enthusiasm as the other two candidates. We noted that the selecting official and the interview panel all unanimously agreed that the selectee was the best qualified for the position. We further found that Complainant failed to establish that the Agency's reasons were pretext for discrimination. We noted that Complainant failed to provide any evidence that would suggest that the interview panel intentionally misinterpreted his answers based on discrimination because of his protected classes.
In his request for reconsideration, Complainant through his attorney, argues in pertinent part that our previous decision failed to adhere to the principles of summary judgment. Complainant maintains that the interview notes of the selecting official revealed that his performance during the interview was superior to that of the selectee. Complainant also argues that a panel member's notes indicated that his interview was far stronger. Complainant further contends that we improperly noted that the selectee received a higher final interview score from the panel than him. Complainant argues that the panel was biased against him.
We remind Complainant 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. Although Complainant argues that his interview was stronger, he has not presented evidence to establish that the Agency was motivated by discriminatory animus here. We find that Complainant's arguments fail to establish that our previous decision clearly erred in finding no pretext.
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(c), and it is the decision of the Commission to DENY the request. The decision in EEOC Appeal No. 0120123306 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
March 13, 2015
Date
1 Complainant references Appeal No. 0120130646 and Agency No. MINT-09-0779-F in his request for reconsideration. That appeal currently is pending before the Commission. Based on our review of Complainant's request, however, it is clear that his request pertains instead to Appeal No. 0120123306 and Agency No. MINT-11-0167-F, which is addressed herein.
---------------
------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
------------------------------------------------------------
2
0520140488
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
2
0520140488