05A30690
05-23-2003
Peter Schweikert, Complainant, v. John W. Snow, Secretary, Department of the Treasury, Agency.
Peter Schweikert v. Department of the Treasury
05A30690
05-23-03
.
Peter Schweikert,
Complainant,
v.
John W. Snow,
Secretary,
Department of the Treasury,
Agency.
Request No. 05A30690
Appeal No. 01A20522
Agency No. 01-3021
Hearing No. 170-A1-8345x
DENIAL OF REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
Peter Schweikert (complainant) timely initiated a request to the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) to reconsider
the decision in Peter Schweikert v. Department of the Treasury, EEOC
Appeal No. 01A20522 (April 3, 2003). 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 29 C.F.R. �
1614.405(b).
After a review of 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.<1> The decision
in EEOC Appeal No. 01A20522 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.
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
____05-23-03______________
Date
1 We note that complainant submitted new
evidence with his reconsideration request claiming to support his
claims of adverse impact. As a general rule, no new evidence will
be considered on appeal (and by extension, on reconsideration) unless
there is an affirmative showing that the evidence was not reasonably
available prior to or during the investigation or during the hearing
process. See EEOC Management Directive 110, 9-15, November 9, 1999;
Presley v. USPS, Request No. 05980656 (Sept. 20, 2001). It appears that
complainant may have requested this evidence during the hearing process.
The Administrative Judge denied complainant's Motion to Compel Production
of Documents because the motion was not accompanied by the original
discovery request, and because it was filed out of time. Not only did
complainant not show that this information was not reasonably available
during earlier case processing, but his attempted introduction of this
evidence at the reconsideration stage, unaccompanied by a statement
showing service on opposing counsel, is untimely and defective.