Edward G. Shannon, Complainant,v.John W. Snow, Secretary, Department of the Treasury, (Internal Revenue Service), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionJul 22, 2004
05A40852 (E.E.O.C. Jul. 22, 2004)

05A40852

07-22-2004

Edward G. Shannon, Complainant, v. John W. Snow, Secretary, Department of the Treasury, (Internal Revenue Service), Agency.


Edward G. Shannon v. Department of the Treasury

05A40852

July 22, 2004

.

Edward G. Shannon,

Complainant,

v.

John W. Snow,

Secretary,

Department of the Treasury,

(Internal Revenue Service),

Agency.

Request No. 05A40852

Appeal No. 01A33179

Agency No. 02-3078

Hearing No. 170-A2-8346X

DENIAL OF REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

Edward G. Shannon (complainant) timely initiated a request to the Equal

Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) to reconsider the

decision in Edward G. Shannon v. Department of the Treasury, EEOC Appeal

No. 01A33179 (May 20, 2004). 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 his complaint, complainant alleged that the agency discriminated

against him on the basis of disability, in violation of Section 501

of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Rehabilitation Act), as amended,

29 U.S.C. � 791 et seq., when in June 2001, it failed to select him for

the position of temporary Lead Program Analyst.

In our previous decision, we affirmed the EEOC Administrative Judge's

(AJ's) decision finding of no discrimination. The AJ concluded

that complainant failed to establish a prima facie case of disability

discrimination. The AJ found that complainant did not have a mental or

physical impairment, which substantially interfered with one or more of

his major life activities. The AJ also concluded that even assuming

arguendo that complainant established a prima facie case, the agency

articulated legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions.

The record reveals that complainant's application, along with those

of other qualified candidates, was reviewed, rated and ranked by a

three member ranking panel. The record also reveals that the cut-off

score for highly qualified (HQ) candidates was 45.28 and the cut-off

score for best qualified (BQ) candidates was 46.68. The record further

reveals that complainant received a score of 41.32 and was therefore

not further considered for selection. The record also shows that it

would not have been appropriate to consider veteran's preference in

connection with this vacancy announcement/position because it was an

internal announcement, only open to current employees, and veteran's

preference pertained only to appointments of external candidates.

Therefore, in our previous decision we agreed with the AJ that a

decision without a hearing was appropriate, and a preponderance of the

record evidence did not establish that discrimination occurred. In his

request, complainant restates the same arguments that he made on appeal.

This Commission carefully considered all of the record evidence at the

time it rendered the initial decision in question, and complainant has

offered no persuasive reason why this decision should be reconsidered now.

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. The decision in EEOC

Appeal No. 01A33179 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

July 22, 2004

__________________

Date