Jasper Dodson, Complainant,v.Louis Caldera, Secretary, Department of the Army, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionDec 7, 2000
05990948 (E.E.O.C. Dec. 7, 2000)

05990948

12-07-2000

Jasper Dodson, Complainant, v. Louis Caldera, Secretary, Department of the Army, Agency.


Jasper Dodson v. Department of the Army

05990948

December 7, 2000

.

Jasper Dodson,

Complainant,

v.

Louis Caldera,

Secretary,

Department of the Army,

Agency.

Request No. 05990948

Appeal No. 01976003

Agency No. 09-587-F0110

DENIAL OF REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

The complainant initiated a request to the Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission (EEOC or Commission) to reconsider the decision in Jasper

Dodson v. Department of the Army, EEOC Appeal No. 01976003 (July 15,

1999).<1> 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).

Complainant alleged that he was discriminated against on the bases of race

(African-American), Irish-American and American Indian), color (brown),

religion (Baptist), national origin (Africa, Ireland and America),

sex (male), age (38) and in reprisal (prior EEO activity) when he was

denied the opportunity to be detailed, reassigned or promoted in order

to compete for the position of GS-1170-12, Chief, Planning and Control

Branch (P&CB), Real Estate Division, and was denied the opportunity to

serve as the acting Chief P&CB.

In the appellate decision, the Commission affirmed the agency's Final

Decision (FAD) which found that complainant did not suffer an adverse

personnel action. Specifically, it found that complainant was ineligible

for a GS-12 position since he held only a GS-9 position at the time.

In addition, while complainant was placed in an �acting� capacity, he

was ineligible for a detail for similar reasons. The agency also noted

that the selectee was a 47 year old black male who identified himself

as a Baptist and who held a higher grade than complainant. Accordingly,

the agency did not find complainant similarly situated to the selectee.

Nor was any other identified comparison employee shown to be similarly

situated to complainant. With respect to the reprisal claim, the agency

found no evidence of a causal connection between the adverse action

and the prior EEO activity which occurred approximately six years

apart. Lastly, the agency found the agency responses legitimate and

non-discriminatory, with no evidence of pretext or discriminatory animus.

Complainant fails to note any material error of fact or law in

the appellate decision.<2> Accordingly, after a review of the

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. 01976003

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

December 7, 2000

__________________

Date

1On November 9, 1999, revised regulations governing the EEOC's federal

sector complaint process went into effect. These regulations apply

to all federal sector EEO complaints pending at any stage in the

administrative process. Consequently, the Commission will apply

the revised regulations found at 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 in deciding the

present appeal. The regulations, as amended, may also be found at the

Commission's website at www.eeoc.gov.

2 We note that complainant raises a disability claim for the first time

in his request to reconsider. Without deciding the issue of timeliness,

should complainant wish to pursue this claim, we urge him to immediately

seek EEO counseling on this issue.