0520150288
08-28-2015
Complainant, v. Penny Pritzker, Secretary, Department of Commerce (National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration), Agency.
Complainant,
v.
Penny Pritzker,
Secretary,
Department of Commerce
(National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration),
Agency.
Request No. 0520150288
Appeal No. 0120150039
Agency No. 54201201965
DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
Complainant timely requested reconsideration of the decision in George W. Nottage v. Department of Commerce, EEOC Appeal No. 0120150039 (February 20, 2015). 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).
Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging that he was discriminated against based on age and reprisal when he was removed from his position effective April 7, 2012. Complainant requested that his EEO complaint be amended and/or reframed. The Agency issued a decision on April 3, 2013, dismissing the amendments, because Complainant failed to raise those claims in a timely manner. Additionally, on May 21, 2013, the Agency issued another decision concerning the removal action. Therein, Complainant was given appeal rights to the Merit Systems Protection Board. Complainant filed an appeal of both decisions with the Commission on September 29, 2014.
The previous decision found that Complainant's appeal regarding the April 3, 2013 dismissal of his claims was untimely filed. The decision also found that there was no jurisdiction over Complainant's appeal from the May 21, 2013 final decision regarding his removal. Complainant's appeal of both FADs was dismissed.
In his request for reconsideration, Complainant does not explain his untimely filing. Rather he seeks to consolidate the matter with complaints for which decisions have been issued.1. He has previously made this argument. We emphasize that a request for reconsideration is not a second appeal to the Commission. See EEO MD-110, Ch. 9, � VII.A. Rather, a reconsideration request is an opportunity to demonstrate that the appellate decision involved a clearly erroneous interpretation of material fact or law, or will have a substantial impact on the policies, practices, or operations of the Agency. Complainant has not done so here.
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. 0120150039 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
August 28, 2015
__________________
Date
1 The decision on EEOC Appeal No. 0120123167 was issued on March 22, 2013, and the decision on EEOC Appeal No. 0120140754 was issued on January 15, 2015. Both decisions addressed the merits of Complainant's claims.
---------------
------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
------------------------------------------------------------
2
0520150288
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
2
0520150288