05a00424
05-16-2000
Johnny Wiley, Complainant, F. Whitten Peters, Acting Secretary, Department of the Air Force, Agency.
Johnny Wiley v. Department of the Air Force
05A00424
May 16, 2000
Johnny Wiley, )
Complainant, ) Request No. 05A00424
) Appeal No. 01974171
) Agency No. T0466TXF0796R
)
F. Whitten Peters, )
Acting Secretary, )
Department of the Air Force, )
Agency. )
____________________________________)
DENIAL OF REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
Complainant initiated a request to the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (EEOC or Commission) to reconsider the decision in Johnny
Wiley v. Air Force, EEOC Appeal No. 01974171 (February 7, 2000).<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 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659 (1999)
(to be codified and hereinafter referred to as 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405(b)).
Complainant filed a formal complaint on May 15, 1996, in which he alleged
that he was discriminated against on the basis of race (African-American)
when, on March 7, 1996, he received a Management Directive Reassignment
(MDR) from the GS-11 position of Supervisory Engineering Technician to
the GS-11 position of Engineering Technician. The agency accepted the
complaint for processing and, at the conclusion of its investigation,
issued a finding of no discrimination. Our previous decision affirmed.
This request to reconsider followed.
Regarding the agency's legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason, our previous
decision found that although there was no documentation concerning
complainant's alleged communication deficiencies, there was witness
testimony which indicated that complainant had a problem communicating
effectively. The previous decision also recognized the two incidents
relied upon by the agency regarding complainant's poor supervisory
judgment for which he was required to attend training.
In his request to reconsider, complainant argues that the previous
decision contained clearly erroneous interpretations of facts and law.
Generally, he disputes the contention that he exercised poor supervisory
judgment, denies that a union grievance was filed against him, and notes
that he was originally an Electronics Technician, not an Engineering
Technician. Regarding the misinterpretation of law, complainant
argues that because he showed that one reason for his reassignment was
not supported by the record, then he should have prevailed based on his
prima facie case. We disagree. Merely setting forth a prima facie case
is not enough to prove discrimination. Rather, a complainant must also
show that the agency's articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason
was a pretext for discrimination. See St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks,
509 U.S. 502 (1993) (holding that the trier's of fact rejection of
an employer's articulated reasons for its actions does not entitle a
plaintiff to judgment as a matter of law). Complainant failed to show
that the agency's actions were motivated by a discriminatory animus.
Complainant also argues that since the previous decision was issued, new
information (i.e., that the alleged discriminating official was physically
involved with the WFT, the employee that was the subject of complainant's
alleged poor supervisory judgment) has come to his attention. This new
information, however, is immaterial and does nothing to strengthen his
discrimination claim.
Therefore, 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. 01974171 remains final. There is no further right of
administrative appeal on the decision of the Commission on this request
for reconsideration.
COMPLAINANTS' RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (P0400)
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:
May 16, 2000
Date Carlton M. Hadden, Acting Director
Office of Federal Operations
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 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644 (1999), where applicable, in deciding the
present appeal. The regulations, as amended, may also be found at the
Commission's website at www.eeoc.gov.