05A30489
03-20-2003
Charles R. Goodwine, Complainant, v. Anthony J. Principi, Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs, Agency.
Charles R. Goodwine v. Department of Veterans Affairs
05A30489
03-20-03
.
Charles R. Goodwine,
Complainant,
v.
Anthony J. Principi,
Secretary,
Department of Veterans Affairs,
Agency.
Request No. 05A30489
Appeal No. 01A20538
Agency No. 97-1721
DENIAL OF REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
Charles R. Goodwine (complainant) timely initiated a request to the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) to reconsider the
decision in Charles R. Goodwine v. Department of Veterans Affairs, EEOC
Appeal No. 01A20538 (January 10, 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).
In the initial decision, complainant maintained that based on his race
(African-American), he was not selected for the position of Customer
Service Specialist, GS-5. The agency issued a final agency decision
(FAD) finding no discrimination. The agency determined that although
complainant had established a prima facie case of race discrimination, the
agency articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions.
The FAD maintained that the rating panel (Panel) rated the applicants
on their application packets alone, and not on the Panel's personal
knowledge of the applicants. With regard to complainant's application,
it was noted that complainant did not answer the application questions
in complete form and instead gave �very vague� explanations regarding
his ability to do the job. The agency noted that, although complainant
had several years of experience working for the office, the quality of
his experience was unclear in his application. Based on this application
packet complainant was rated in the bottom half of the group. The FAD
then found that complainant failed to show that the agency's explanations
were pretext for discrimination.
In his request for reconsideration, complainant maintains that there
was an obvious attempt to discredit him by his supervisor. Complainant
contends that his supervisor failed to submit the supervisor's portion of
the application in a timely manner. In fact, complainant maintains that
his supervisor did not submit his portion of the application until after
the selection was made. Complainant also indicates that his supervisor
supervised him for a longer period of time than the supervisor indicated.
Further, complainant alleges that his supervisor intentionally gave
him low scores on the Knowledge, Skills and Abilities (KSAs) portion of
the application because of an incident that took place in the office.
Complainant maintains that he and another employee had a loud verbal
disagreement and the supervisor took the other employee's side.
Additionally, complainant maintains that the signatures on the final
rating panel worksheets were inconsistent.
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. We find
that complainant failed to show that the appellate decision involved
a clearly erroneous interpretation of material fact or law. We note
that the FAD indicated that it was complainant's own responses to the
KSAs that caused him to be rated in the bottom half of the applications.
Further, there is no evidence indicating that the supervisor's untimely
submission of his responses hurt the complainant's application or was
adversely considered by the Panel. Additionally, we find that complainant
failed to show the significance of the signatures on the final rating
panel worksheets. Therefore, the decision in EEOC Appeal No. 01A20538
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
_____03-20-03_____________
Date