05a00318
12-20-2000
Joseph Cziglenyi, Complainant, v. Bruce Babbitt, Secretary, Department of the Interior, (Bureau of Land Management), Agency.
Joseph Cziglenyi v. Department of the Interior
05A00318
December 20, 2000
.
Joseph Cziglenyi,
Complainant,
v.
Bruce Babbitt,
Secretary,
Department of the Interior,
(Bureau of Land Management),
Agency.
Request No. 05A00318
Appeal No. 01975349
Agency No. LLM-96-016
DENIAL OF REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
The complainant initiated a request to the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (EEOC or Commission) to reconsider the decision in Joseph
Cziglenyi v. Department of the Interior, EEOC Appeal No. 01975349
(December 10, 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).
The two issues presented by the original, underlying complaint was whether
complainant was discriminated against on the bases of national origin
(Hungarian) and age (50) when: (1) on or about May 27, 1995, he was
notified of his termination from his seasonal (temporary) position as a
Biological Technician; and (2) management made the decision to fill his
former position with students from the Environmental Careers Organization
(ECO) for the following season.
The agency found in its final agency decision (FAD) that complainant
failed to establish a prima facie case of national origin or age
discrimination regarding claim (1), as he presented no evidence that
similarly situated individuals not in his protected groups were treated
differently under similar circumstances. In addition, the FAD found that
while complainant established a prima facie case of national origin and
age discrimination regarding claim (2), the agency articulated legitimate,
nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions, namely that the ECO students
did not replace complainant as they performed different functions, and
they were paid with money from a contract between the agency and the
ECO rather than out of the agency's budget allocated for FTE salaries.
On appeal, the Commission affirmed the FAD.
In his request, complainant makes several contentions, specifically
that the FAD erred in finding that: (1) his temporary employment was
terminated due to budget limitations; (2) the ECO students performed
the same functions as did complainant; (3) the ECO contract budget
was not separate from the budget allocated for temporary employees.
Complainant further restates his contention made previously before the
Commission that the EEO Counselor's Report and Report of Investigation
contain untruthful statements made by agency management.
Initially, we address complainant's contention on reconsideration that
the FAD incorrectly found that his seasonal (temporary) employment was
terminated due to the agency's budget limitations. While complainant
alleges there was money available for the agency's wildlife program to
add additional work months for the position that he held, the record
indicates that there were no full time equivalency (FTE) positions
available to continue complainant's employment after November of 1994.
In this regard, the record indicates that complainant was notified that
his employment to work on the agency's Juniper Dune Forest project was
initially for 180 days, was designated as not to exceed May 14, 1995
and he was also notified that due to FTE budget constraints, there
was no guarantee that he would be in pay status for the full period
of his employment. Exhibits 6, 7, 14. The record evidence further
indicates that while the agency's wildlife program may have had money
in its budget, upon completion of the Juniper Dune Forest project that
complainant worked on, the agency did not have sufficient FTE positions
to continue his employment past the 180 days which he was hired to work.
Regarding complainant's contentions that the ECO students performed the
same functions as he did, the FAD found that while the job descriptions
may have been similar, the ECO students were hired to work on different
projects than was complainant. For example, while complainant worked
only on the Juniper Dune Forest project, the ECO students worked in
the Wenatchee Resource Area and the Border Resource Area. The record
indicates that the Juniper Dune Project which complainant was hired to
work on was completed in November of 1994, and thus the ECO students
worked on other projects which started after complainant's tenure had
concluded. In addition, the record establishes that the agency's budget
for employment of temporary employees such as complainant was not the
same as the budget for employment of ECO students. Agency officials
testified that complainant's salary as a seasonal (temporary) employee
derived from the budget allocated to staffing and available FTE position
vacancies. As previously stated, due to limitations on FTE positions,
complainant's 180 day employment was not extended. However, the salary
for ECO students was made through an memorandum of understanding between
the ECO and the agency where their salaries would not be charged against
the agency as FTE vacancies. See Exhibit 8, page 15; Exhibit 11, page 7;
Exhibit 12, page 8. Finally, a review of the record shows no evidence
that the EEO Counselor's Report and the Report of Investigation was in
any way incomplete or contained false evidence.
Thus, 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. 01975349 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 20, 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.