0520140310
10-31-2014
Complainant, v. Martin J. Gruenberg, Chairman, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Agency.
Complainant,
v.
Martin J. Gruenberg,
Chairman,
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation,
Agency.
Request No. 0520140310
Appeal No. 0120110879
Agency No. FDIC090019C
DENIAL
Complainant timely requested reconsideration of the decision in Complainant v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, EEOC Appeal No. 0120110879 (April 2, 2014). 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(c).
The previous decision affirmed the Agency's order denying class certification of the class complaint. Specifically, the decision found that Complainant failed to establish commonality and typicality; failed to identify how many individuals would be members of the class; and failed to demonstrate that he retained representation for the class. The decision directed the Agency to process Complainant's individual complaint in accordance with 29 C.F.R. � 1614.108 unless it provides proof that the complaint has been formally dismissed.
In the request, Complainant submits some additional data regarding the Agency's recruitment under the Corporate Employee Program (CEP) based on his attendance at two separate recruiting events in order to support his allegations of discrimination based on age. In addition to submitting this data, Complainant also attempts to "more accurately" describe and define the class grievance in order to fulfill the typicality and commonality requirement of class certification. Further, Complainant contends that he will be unable to meet the numerosity and adequacy of representation requirements because: (1) the Agency refuses to provide him with the names and addresses of all CEP candidates who were invited to interview from the program's inception to the date of the request; and (2) in order to retain as counsel a "well established law firm," he will need to make a $20,000 down payment, which he does not have.
Because Complainant has not put forth any arguments which the Commission finds to be material to the outcome of the underlying decision, or that were not previously considered in rendering the underlying decision, the Commission finds that Complainant has not demonstrated that the underlying decision involved a clearly erroneous interpretation of material fact or law. Additionally, Complainant has failed to successfully argue or demonstrate that the underlying decision would have a substantial impact on the policies, practices, or operations of the Agency. Complainant is reminded that a "request for reconsideration is not a second appeal to the Commission." Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive for 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 (EEO MD-110), Ch. 9 � VII.A. (Nov. 9, 1999). A reconsideration request is an opportunity to demonstrate that the previous decision involved a clearly erroneous interpretation of material fact or law; or will have a substantial impact on the policies, practices, or operations of the Agency.
After reviewing 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(c), and it is the decision of the Commission to deny the request. The decision in EEOC Appeal No. 0120110879 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
__10/31/14________________
Date
2
0520140310
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
2
0520140310