0520130463
09-27-2013
Jarrod D. Simpson, Complainant, v. Dr. Ernest Moniz, Secretary, Department of Energy, Agency.
Jarrod D. Simpson,
Complainant,
v.
Dr. Ernest Moniz,
Secretary,
Department of Energy,
Agency.
Request No. 0520130463
Appeal No. 0120113994
Agency No. 080093SWPA
DENIAL
Complainant timely requested reconsideration of the decision in Jarrod D. Simpson v. Department of Energy, EEOC Appeal No. 0120113994 (April 12, 2013). 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 correctly found that the Agency provided a legitimate non-discriminatory reason for choosing the selectee for the Working Foreman Electrician position, which Complainant failed to show, was pretext for discrimination. Because Complainant has not put forth any arguments which the Commission finds to be material to the outcome of the underlying decision,1 or that were not previously considered in rendering the underlying decision, the Commission finds that Complainant has not demonstrated that the underlying decision involved a clearly erroneous interpretation of material fact or law. Neither has Complainant argued or demonstrated that the underlying decision would have a substantial impact on the policies, practices, or operations of the Agency.
Complainant is reminded 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), Ch. 9 � VII.A. (Nov. 9, 1999). 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. 0120113994 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
___9/27/13_______________
Date
1 The Commission notes Complainant's argument regarding the Agency's use of his initial application packet having a discriminatory effect on the hiring process. However, we are not persuaded. The record reflects that the top three candidates had scores of 103, 98, and 93. Even if Complainant were re-issued the ten points he alleges were discriminatorily deducted from his score of 80, he would have still have had a lower score than the above three candidates.
---------------
------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
------------------------------------------------------------
2
05-2013-0463
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013