0520090684
11-05-2009
Domenic L. Amato, Complainant, v. John McHugh, Secretary, Department of the Army, Agency.
Domenic L. Amato,
Complainant,
v.
John McHugh,
Secretary,
Department of the Army,
Agency.
Request No. 0520090684
Appeal No. 0120070270
Agency No. AREUVICEN06MAR2378
DENIAL
Complainant requested reconsideration of the decision in Domenic L. Amato
v. Department of the Army, EEOC Appeal No. 0120070270 (June 18, 2009).1
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 prior decision, the Commission found that the agency's dismissal
of the complaint was proper pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.107(a)(1).
Specifically, claim 1 states the same claim that has been decided by
the agency and the Commission in Amato v. Department Army, EEOC Appeal
No. 0120064457, request to reconsider, EEOC Request No. 0520070240
(July 18, 2007). The Commission also concluded that claims 2 through 6
raise the same claims previously raised by complainant in EEOC Appeal
No. 0120071342.
In his request for reconsideration, complainant asserts that he was
not granted the opportunity to "tell my story." However, complainant
fails to establish either of the criteria that would support a request
for reconsideration.
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. Complainant failed to present any argument or evidence that
would establish that the prior decision involved a clearly erroneous
interpretation of material fact or law. The decision in EEOC Appeal
No. 0120070270 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 (P0408)
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 (Z1008)
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
November 5, 2009
__________________
Date
1 The Commission notes that complainant filed the instant request on
September 18, 2009, beyond the 30-day limitation period proscribed by
EEOC's regulations. However, complainant alleged that he received the
Commission's final decision in September 2009 because he was on military
duty away from his permanent residence; and the letter was "damaged in
handling by the Postal Service" and "had to be resealed in a covering
envelope before it could be re-mailed" to him. Therefore, given the
circumstances of this case, we exercise our discretion to consider the
instant request.
??
??
??
??
2
0520090684
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013