05a50283
07-19-2005
Homer Ford, Complainant, v. R. James Nicholson, Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs, Agency.
Homer Ford v. Department of Veterans Affairs
05A50283
July 19, 2005
.
Homer Ford,
Complainant,
v.
R. James Nicholson,
Secretary,
Department of Veterans Affairs,
Agency.
Request No. 05A50283
Appeal No. 01A45279
Agency No. 200L-0623-2004103164
DENIAL
Homer Ford (complainant) timely requested reconsideration of the decision
in Homer Ford v. Department of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Appeal No. 01A45279
(November 18, 2004).
The Commission previously affirmed the agency's decision dated July
27, 2004, dismissing complainant's complaint of unlawful employment
discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
(Title VII), as amended, 42 U.S.C. � 2000e et seq., Section 501 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Rehabilitation Act), as amended, 29 U.S.C. �
791 et seq., and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA),
as amended, 29 U.S.C. � 621 et seq. In his complaint, complainant
alleged that he was subjected to discrimination on the bases of race
(Native American), sex (male), disability (80% compensable Purple Heart
veteran), and age (57 years old) when:
on May 17, 2004, he was subjected to a constructive reassignment by the
agency which destroyed his 17 year career as a Human Resources Specialist
and created a hostile work environment;
in April 2001, he was reprimanded by two supervisors (S1: female;
S2: male);
S1 asked him to help resolve an EEO complaint filed by another employee
by working up a settlement agreement and, after completing the task,
he learned that S1 accused him of taking this responsibility without
approval;
he was badmouthed by S1;
S1 opened a questionable vacancy announcement and moved her husband into
the position and when he expressed his reservations concerning this to
S2, S2 removed S1's signature and signed it himself;
after expressing his concerns to S2 about the way S1 opened various
vacancy announcements, S2 gave him a Letter of Counseling;
S1 attempted to fragment the office by telling everyone that complainant's
co-worker (CW1: female) was worthless as a coding clerk;
in April 2001, S1 blamed him for an error related to the retirement
package of an employee;
in July 2002, S1 degraded everyone in Human Resources to the new Acting
Chief of Human Resources;
S1 went to Oklahoma City to perform a salary survey for Nurse
Practitioners;
on two occasions, S1 backdated a promotion even though regulations state
a promotion or classification cannot be retroactive;
the person selected for the Chief of Human Resources was a nurse with
no Human Resource experience;
S1 hired the wives of veterans by improperly passing on the veterans'
status to their wives for employment purposes;
S1 improperly hired people under provisional appointments;
S1 counseled him about unspecified complaints regarding his work;
he was ordered to begin the paperwork for the removal of a co-worker
on the grounds that his appointment was illegal and then his efforts
were halted when it was learned that there was nothing wrong with the
appointment;
he was given an admonishment;
he was not selected for the position of Chief of Voluntary Services;
S1 scrutinized his work more closely than she does other employees in
order to find mistakes; and,
S1 suggested that if he did not take an assignment in safety he would
be placed on a performance improvement plan.
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).
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. 01A45279 remains the
Commission's final 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 (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 19, 2005
__________________
Date