05a01034
11-30-2000
Radi R. Barkett, Complainant, v. Lawrence H. Summers, Secretary, Department of the Treasury Agency.
Radi R. Barkett v. Department of Treasury
05A01034
11-30-00
.
Radi R. Barkett,
Complainant,
v.
Lawrence H. Summers,
Secretary,
Department of the Treasury
Agency.
Request No. 05A01034
Appeal No. 01A03363
Agency No. 99-1203-M
DENIAL OF REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
The complainant initiated a request to the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (EEOC or Commission) to reconsider the decision in Radi
R. Barkett v. Lawrence H. Summers, Secretary, Department of the Treasury,
EEOC Appeal No. 01A03363 (July 12, 2000).<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 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.<2> The decision
in EEOC Appeal No. 01A03363 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
__11-30-00________________
Date
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
For timeliness purposes, the Commission will presume that this decision
was received within five (5) calendar days after it was mailed. I certify
that this decision was mailed to complainant, complainant's representative
(if applicable), and the agency on:
__________________
Date
______________________________
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 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 in deciding the
present appeal. The regulations, as amended, may also be found at the
Commission's website at www.eeoc.gov.
2 The previous decision concluded that the discriminatory event occurred
on September 1, 1998 and that complainant's counselor contact on January
2, 1999 was, therefore, untimely. We note, however, that since the
discrimination involved a nonselection, under EEOC Regulation 28 C.F.R. �
1614.105(a)(1), complainant should have contacted an EEO Counselor
within forty-five (45) days of the date that the nonselection became
effective on November 9, 1998, rather than within forty-five (45) days
of September 1, 1998, when he first became aware of the nonselection.
Even so, complainant did not contact an EEO Counselor until more than
forty-five (45) days after the effective date of the personnel action.
His counselor contact was still untimely; this error is, therefore,
harmless.