Robert J. Harpster, Complainant,v.Timothy F. Geithner, Secretary, Department of the Treasury, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionDec 17, 2010
0520100599 (E.E.O.C. Dec. 17, 2010)

0520100599

12-17-2010

Robert J. Harpster, Complainant, v. Timothy F. Geithner, Secretary, Department of the Treasury, Agency.


Robert J. Harpster,

Complainant,

v.

Timothy F. Geithner,

Secretary,

Department of the Treasury,

Agency.

Request No. 0520100599

Appeal No. 0120083377

Hearing No. 520-2006-00079X

Agency No. TTB-05-0517-M

DENIAL

Complainant timely requested reconsideration of the decision in Robert

J. Harpster v. Department of the Treasury, EEOC Appeal No. 0120083377

(July 6, 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 our previous decision, the Commission dismissed Complainant's attempt

to appeal the final agency decision (FAD) to the Commission, based on

our lack of jurisdiction over the complaint. We found that the Agency

had properly issued a FAD, pursuant to the dismissal order of an EEOC

Administrative Judge (AJ), which gave Complainant appeal rights to

the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) in the matter of his mixed

case complaint. Our previous decision also affirmed the determination

of the Agency that Complainant had not been improperly denied official

time for working on his EEO complaint.

In his request for reconsideration, Complainant argued that the Commission

did not lack jurisdiction over his mixed case complaint, in that his

hostile work environment claim had become inextricably intertwined with

his claim of constructive discharge and should remain in the EEO process.

He also disputed that our decision on his official time request was

correctly decided.

In response to Complainant's request for reconsideration, the Agency

submitted a brief in which it argued that prior case precedent supported

our determination that Complainant's mixed case complaint should have

been appealed to the MSPB, as per the rights given by the Agency to

Complainant in the FAD. It also posited that its determination on the

amount of official time granted to Complainant had been correctly decided

that our affirmance of this determination should stand.

We find that Complainant's request for reconsideration fails to show

that our previous decision involved a clearly erroneous interpretation of

fact or law, or that it would have a substantial impact on the policies,

practices or operations of the Agency. Although Complainant disagrees

with our previous decision, we note that he had been given notice by

the AJ and the Agency that his case was more properly appealed to the

MSPB. Although he might have preferred to remain in the EEO process,

Complainant's preference cannot supercede what the regulations dictate.

See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.302. Were the MSPB to determine that it did not

have jurisdiction, it would remand the complaint for further processing

as an unmixed case. That is not for the Commission to decide. We also

find that the determinations regarding the granting of official time to

work on his EEO complaint were correct.

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. 0120083377 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

December 17, 2010

Date

2

0520100599

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

Office of Federal Operations

P.O. Box 77960

Washington, DC 20013

2

0520100599