05a00195
08-22-2000
John Satcher, Complainant, Bruce Babbit, Secretary, Department of the Interior, Agency.
John Satcher v. Department of the Interior
05A00195
August 22, 2000
John Satcher, )
Complainant, )
)
) Request No. 05A00195
) Appeal No. 01985230
Bruce Babbit, ) Agency No. FWS-97-031R1
Secretary, )
Department of the Interior, )
Agency. )
____________________________________)
DENIAL OF REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
The complainant initiated a request to the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (EEOC or Commission) to reconsider the decision in John
Satcher v. Department of the Interior, EEOC Appeal No. 01985230 (October
14, 1999).<1> EEOC Regulations provide that the Commission may, in
its discretion, 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 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644,
37,659 (1999) (to be codified and hereinafter referred to as 29 C.F.R. �
1614.405(b)).
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 complainant
alleged that he was discriminated against in retaliation for his prior
EEO activity when he received two electronic mail messages (e-mails)
from co-workers. The first, from a co-worker who sometimes served as an
acting supervisor, contained a reference to complainant's having filed
a �workman's comp� claim. The second email, from a co-worker who had no
supervisory responsibilities over complainant, contained a reference to
complainant having filed an �EEO complaint.� The final agency decision
(FAD) found on the merits that complainant was neither �aggrieved� nor
�harassed� by having received these e-mails. The previous decision
summarily affirmed the FAD.
The Request to Reconsider (RTR) meets neither regulatory criterion for
granting reconsideration, i.e., that (1) the previous 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. Complainant attempts without success to
demonstrate that the previous decision contained an error of fact.
He argues that the supervisor's testimony was not worthy of belief but
he points to no competent record evidence that would call that testimony
into question.
Complainant also notes for the first time in his RTR that he was �removed
from a position that offered greater opportunities for advancement and
benefits to a position where chances for advancement are nil.� This
allegation does not provide any basis for the granting of the RTR since
it bears no relation to the complaint now before the Commission which
dealt only with e-mails received by complainant.
The decision in EEOC Appeal No. 01985230 remains the Commission's
final decision. There is no further right of administrative appeal on
the decision of the Commission on this request for reconsideration.
COMPLAINANTS' RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (P0400)
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:
August 22, 2000
Date Carlton M. Hadden, Director
Office of Federal Operations
1On November 9, 1999, revised regulations governing the EEOC's federal
sector complaint process went into effect. These regulations apply to all
federal sector EEO complaints pending at any stage in the administrative
process. Consequently, the Commission will apply the revised regulations
found at 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644 (1999), where applicable, in deciding the
present appeal. The regulations, as amended, may also be found at the
Commission's website at www.eeoc.gov.