05990280
05-24-2001
Martin Johnson, Jr. v. Department of the Treasury (Bureau of Printing
and Engraving)
05990280
May 24, 2001
.
Martin Johnson, Jr.,
Complainant,
v.
Paul H. O'Neill,
Secretary,
Department of the Treasury,
(Bureau of Engraving and Printing),
Agency.
Request No. 05990280
Appeal No. 01981307
Agency No. 96-2255
Hearing No. 310-97-5175X
DENIAL OF REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
The complainant initiated a request to the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (EEOC or Commission) to reconsider the decision in Martin
Johnson, Jr. v. Department of the Treasury (Bureau of Printing
and Engraving), EEOC Appeal No. 01981307 (December 10, 1998).
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).
In his underlying complaint, complainant alleged that he was
discriminated against because of his race (Black) and age (over 40)
when he was not ranked as Best Qualified for the position of Plate Maker
(Intermediate), Vacancy Announcement No. 96-009-CAM. In his request,
complainant restates arguments made on appeal that the Plate Maker
position was incorrectly classified in violation of Federal regulations
for discriminatory reasons.
The EEOC is not persuaded that the evidence of record establishes that
the position was classified incorrectly. Rather, after a review of
the complainant's request for reconsideration, the previous decision,
and the entire record, the Commission finds that the record supports the
testimony to the effect that the proper criteria was used by both the
Personnel Management Specialist responsible for the vacancy announcement
and the rating panel responsible for finding complainant not to be among
the Best Qualified candidates. The Commission therefore 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. 01981307 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
May 24, 2001
Date