Devalyn Rogers, Complainant,v.John W. Snow, Secretary, Department of the Treasury, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionSep 14, 2005
05a51024 (E.E.O.C. Sep. 14, 2005)

05a51024

09-14-2005

Devalyn Rogers, Complainant, v. John W. Snow, Secretary, Department of the Treasury, Agency.


Devalyn Rogers v. Department of the Treasury

05A51024

09-14-05

.

Devalyn Rogers,

Complainant,

v.

John W. Snow,

Secretary,

Department of the Treasury,

Agency.

Request No. 05A51024

Appeal No. 01A50991

Agency No. 99-2293; 99-2341; 00-2110

Hearing No. 330-2002-08226x

DECISION ON REQUEST TO RECONSIDER

On June 26, 2005, Devalyn Rogers (complainant) timely requested

reconsideration of the decision in Devalyn Rogers v. John W. Snow,

Secretary, Department of the Treasury, EEOC Appeal No. 01A50991

(June 1, 2005). EEOC regulations provide that the Commission may, in

its discretion, grant a request to reconsider any previous Commission

decision where the party demonstrates that: (1) the appellate decision

involved a clearly erroneous interpretation of material fact or law;

or (2) the decision will have a substantial impact on the policies,

practices, or operation of the agency. 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405(b).

The previous decision affirmed the agency's final decision implementing

the decision of the Administrative Judge (AJ) that it did not discriminate

against complainant. In her request, complainant stated her disagreement

with the AJ's decision and addressed several procedural matters not

affecting the merits of her claims.<1> We note that AJs are given wide

latitude in conducting hearings. The matters raised by complainant

occurred prior to her appeal or were known to her prior to her appeal

and should have been raised at that time. We find that the previous

decision was correct.

In order to merit the reconsideration of a prior decision, the requesting

party must submit written argument that tends to establish that at least

one of the criteria of 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405(b) is met. The Commission's

scope of review on a request for reconsideration is narrow and is not

merely a form of a second appeal. Lopez v. Department of the Air Force,

EEOC Request No. 05890749 (September 28, 1989); Regensberg v. USPS,

EEOC Request No. 05900850 (September 7, 1990). The Commission finds that

the complainant's request does not meet the regulatory criteria of 29

C.F.R. � 1614.405(b), in that, the request does not identify a clearly

erroneous interpretation of material fact or law, nor does it show that

the underlying decision will have a substantial impact on the policies,

practices or operation of the agency.

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. 01A50991 remains the Commission's final decision.

There is no further right of administrative appeal on the decision of

the Commission on the decision of the Commission on this request.

STATEMENT OF COMPLAINANT'S RIGHTS - ON 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

___09-14-05_______________

Date

1Complainant is advised that the Commission does not have jurisdiction

regarding whistleblower claims.