0520130002
02-22-2013
Laurie Germonto, Complainant, v. Ray Mabus, Secretary, Department of the Navy, Agency.
Laurie Germonto,
Complainant,
v.
Ray Mabus,
Secretary,
Department of the Navy,
Agency.
Request No. 0520130002
Appeal No. 0120121563
Hearing No. 420-2011-00114X
Agency No. 10-69450-00711
DENIAL
Complainant timely requested reconsideration of the decision in Laurie Germonto v. Department of the Navy, EEOC Appeal No. 0120121563 (July 25, 2012). 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).
In our previous decision, we affirmed the EEOC Administrative Judge's (AJ's) decision granting summary judgment in favor of the Agency. We noted that the AJ properly found that the Agency articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for not selecting Complainant to Production Controller positions. We found that Complainant failed to establish that the Agency's reasons were pretext for discrimination. We noted that the selectees had specific experience with production, shop, and supply systems, but Complainant did not. We noted that Complainant did not show sufficient knowledge of the selection criteria, including experience with Maximo software. We noted that both selectees had already been performing Production Controller duties and had experience with Maximo software. We therefore found that the AJ's issuance of a decision without a hearing was appropriate.
In her request for reconsideration, Complainant, in pertinent part, contends that our previous decision involved clearly erroneous interpretation of material fact and law. Complainant contends that she was clearly qualified for the positions because she was chosen by the Agency as an alternate. Complainant contends that the Agency pre-selected the two male candidates who were selected to the positions.
We remind Complainant that a "request for reconsideration is not a second appeal to the Commission." Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive for 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 (EEO MD-110) (rev. Nov. 9, 1999), at 9-17; Lopez v. Dep't of Agriculture, EEOC Request No. 0520070736 (Aug. 20, 2007). Rather, a reconsideration request is an opportunity to demonstrate that the previous decision 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. Complainant has not done so here. While evidence of pre-selection or favoritism may act to discredit an agency's explanation for its selection, pre-selection alone does not violate Title VII when there is no evidence that it was based on a factor prohibited by the statute. Goostree v. State of Tennessee, 796 F.2d 854, 861 (6th Cir. 1986).
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. 0120121563 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
February 22, 2013
Date
2
0520130002
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
2
0520130002