0520110699
12-21-2011
John W. Wilson, Complainant, v. Ray H. LaHood, Secretary, Department of Transportation (Federal Aviation Administration), Agency.
John W. Wilson,
Complainant,
v.
Ray H. LaHood,
Secretary,
Department of Transportation
(Federal Aviation Administration),
Agency.
Request No. 0520110699
Appeal No. 0120100744
Agency No. 2009-22398-FAA-02
DENIAL
Complainant timely requested reconsideration of the decision in John
W. Wilson v. Department of Transportation, EEOC Appeal No. 0120100744
(August 5, 2011). 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).
ISSUE PRESENTED
The issue presented is whether Complainant met the criteria for
reconsideration by demonstrating that the appellate decision: (1)
involved a clearly erroneous interpretation of material fact or law;
or (2) will have a substantial impact on the policies, practices, or
operations of the Agency.
BACKGROUND
In the underlying case, Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging
that the Agency discriminated against him on the bases of race
(African-American), sex (male), age (55), and reprisal for prior protected
EEO activity when, on September 29, 2008, he was not selected for the
position of Supervisory Telecommunications Specialist, advertised under
vacancy announcement number AWA-AJQ-08-LD09294-1055147.
The appellate decision affirmed the Agency’s final decision, which found
that Complainant failed to prove that the Agency discriminated against him
as alleged. Specifically, the appellate decision found that Complainant
failed to show that the legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons articulated
by the Agency were a pretext for discrimination or that his qualifications
for the position were observably superior to those of the selectee.
ARGUMENTS ON RECONSIDERATION
In his request for reconsideration, Complainant argued that the Agency’s
hiring practices since 1996 have allowed selecting officials to hire
candidates “that they know” instead of the best qualified candidates.
In addition, Complainant argued that his complaint should be included in
a pending class complaint which alleges that the Agency’s subjective
promotion practices had a disparate impact on African-American employees.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
Upon review, we find that Complainant’s request for reconsideration does
not establish that the appellate decision involved a clearly erroneous
interpretation of material fact or law, or that the appellate decision
will have a substantial impact on the policies, practices, or operations
of the Agency. Aside from his general assertions that the Agency’s
hiring practices resulted in discrimination, we find that Complainant
did not specifically argue or demonstrate that his own non-selection was
discriminatory. Moreover, we note that the pending class complaint cited
by Complainant has no bearing on this case. Complainant’s non-selection
involved a position at the Agency’s Headquarters in Washington, DC.
In contrast, the pending class complaint involves African-American
employees at the Agency’s Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center in Oklahoma
City, Oklahoma. See Lewis, et al. v. Dep’t of Transportation, EEOC
Appeal No. 01A40442 (Sept. 28, 2005).
CONCLUSION
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(b), and it is the decision of the Commission to DENY
the request. The decision in EEOC Appeal No. 0120100744 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
___12/21/11_______________
Date
2
0520110699
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
2
0520110699