0520130180
05-31-2013
Harold Staten, Complainant, v. Tom J. Vilsack, Secretary, Department of Agriculture (Farm Service Agency), Agency.
Harold Staten,
Complainant,
v.
Tom J. Vilsack,
Secretary,
Department of Agriculture
(Farm Service Agency),
Agency.
Request No. 0520130180
Appeal No. 0120122228
Hearing No. 570-2011-00373X
Agency No. FSA-2009-01350
DENIAL
Complainant timely requested reconsideration of the decision in Harold Staten v. Department of Agriculture, EEOC Appeal No. 0120122228 (November 20, 2012). 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(b).
The previous decision affirmed the Agency's implementation of an EEOC Administrative Judge's (AJ) issuance of a decision without a hearing in favor of the Agency. Complainant had filed a complaint against the Agency in which he claimed that he had been discriminated against based on his race, sex, age, and disability when he was subjected to a pattern of harassment by the Agency. The AJ issued a summary judgment decision in which he found that Complainant had not established that he had been subjected to severe or pervasive conduct sufficient to establish a legally hostile environment, and had not shown that he had been singled out because of his membership in any protected group. The previous decision found that the AJ's issuance of summary judgment was appropriate, and that Complainant had not shown that any of the Agency's actions were taken because of his race, sex, age, or disability, among other findings.
In his request for reconsideration, Complainant argued that the previous decision was clearly erroneous in its finding that the AJ properly issued a decision without a hearing, and in its finding that Complainant had not established that he had been subjected to harassment. Complainant argued that he had been subjected to numerous adverse actions, which were more than "petty annoyances," and that his supervisor's actions were motivated by racial animus. The Agency submitted a brief in opposition to Complainant's request for reconsideration in which it urged the Commission to affirm its previous decision, and argued that Complainant had merely reiterated his brief in support of his initial appeal.
We find that Complainant's request for reconsideration fails to show that our previous decision involved a clearly erroneous interpretation of material fact or law, or that it would have a substantial impact on the policies, practices or operations of the Agency. Complainant's arguments in support of his request for reconsideration reiterated many of the arguments he made in support of his initial appeal. These arguments were adequately considered at that time. We note that a "request for reconsideration is not a second appeal to the Commission." E.g., Lopez v. Dep't of Agriculture, EEOC Request No. 0520070736 (Aug. 20, 2007); EEO Management Directive for Part 1614 (EEO MD-110), Chap. 9, �VII.A. (Nov. 9, 1999). We find that the previous decision's conclusion that Complainant had not linked his supervisor's actions to racial animus to have been correct, noting that the comments alleged to have been made do not obviously, or even obliquely, reference race.
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(b), and it is the decision of the Commission to DENY the request. The decision in EEOC Appeal No. 0120122228 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
May 31, 2013
Date
2
0520130180
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
2
0520130180