0520110132
02-03-2011
Jeffery A. Teamer, Complainant, v. Janet Napolitano, Secretary, Department of Homeland Security, Agency.
Jeffery A. Teamer,
Complainant,
v.
Janet Napolitano,
Secretary,
Department of Homeland Security,
Agency.
Request No. 0520110132
Appeal No. 0120102459
Hearing No. 330-2006-00040X
Agency No. HS-04-TSA-001255
DENIAL
Complainant timely requested reconsideration of the decision in Jeffery
A. Teamer v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., EEOC Appeal No. 0120102459
(Sept. 30, 2010). 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).
In the Commission’s previous decision, the Commission affirmed the
April 15, 2010 final Agency decision (FAD) finding that the Agency had
not discriminated against Complainant as alleged. Complainant alleged
discrimination based on race (African-American), sex (male), color
(black), disability, and age (43) when, on September 15, 2004, his
employment was terminated.
Initially, the Commission assumed arguendo that Complainant had
established a prima facie case of discrimination on the alleged bases
and found that the Agency had articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory
reasons for its actions. Specifically, the Commission found that
Complainant admitted that he altered medical documentation identified by
the Agency in its proposal to remove him. Additionally, the Commission
determined that the record contained voluminous time and attendance
documentation demonstrating Complainant’s attendance issues as
additional grounds for his removal. Finally, the Commission found
the record contained statements from Complainant’s supervisors in
support of Complainant’s attendance issues and efforts to provide him
with opportunities to comply with the Agency’s attendance policies.
The Commission found that Complainant had not established that the
Agency's reasons for his termination were pretextual; therefore, the
Commission affirmed the FAD’s finding of no discrimination.
In his request for reconsideration, Complainant contends that he did
not have attendance issues while employed with the Agency. Complainant
argues that there were many issues and inaccuracies with regard to his
attendance records that have caused him to be viewed negatively and to
justify the Agency’s disparate and unfair treatment. Specifically,
Complainant denies that he failed to follow procedures in requesting
leave. Finally, Complainant claims that he submitted the altered copy
of his medical documentation inadvertently after the Agency refused to
retain a copy of the original. Accordingly, Complainant requests that
the Commission reconsider its prior decision.
The Commission reminds Complainant that a “request for reconsideration
is not a second appeal to the Commission.” Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission Management Directive for 29 C.F.R. Part 1614, at 9-17
(Nov. 9, 1999); See Lopez v. Dep’t of the Air Force, EEOC Request
No. 05890749 (Sept. 28, 1989); Regensberg v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC
Request No. 05900850 (Sept. 7, 1990). Complainant has not provided any
evidence that the Commission’s previous decision was clearly erroneous,
nor has he shown that the previous decision would have a substantial
impact on the Agency's policies. After reconsidering 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. 0120102459 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
February 3, 2011
Date
2
0520110132
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
2
0520110132