05A20431
05-31-2002
Richard T. Cook, Complainant, v. Gale A. Norton, Secretary, Department of the Interior, Agency.
Richard T. Cook v. Department of the Interior
05A20431
May 31, 2002
.
Richard T. Cook,
Complainant,
v.
Gale A. Norton,
Secretary,
Department of the Interior,
Agency.
Request No. 05A20431
Appeal No. 01993136
Agency No. FNP-97-116
Hearing No. 170-98-8308X
DENIAL OF REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
Richard T. Cook (complainant) timely initiated a request to the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) to reconsider the
decision in Richard T. Cook v. United States Department of the Interior,
EEOC Appeal No. 01993136 (January 30, 2002). 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 her complaint, complainant alleged that he was discriminated against
on the basis of race (Caucasian) when on July 3, 1997, his temporary
appointment as Park Ranger, GS-025-07, was terminated, and he was not
converted to a permanent position.
In the previous decision, the Commission affirmed the agency's final
decision which concluded that complainant failed to establish a prima
facie case of discrimination based on race. Specifically, we noted that
complainant did not demonstrate that an employee outside of his protected
group was treated more favorably under similar circumstances. We also
noted that the Black employee complainant cited as a comparison, was not
similarly situated to complainant, because complainant was a temporary
employee and the comparator was a permanent employee.
We also concluded that assuming arguendo that complainant established a
prima facie case of discrimination, the agency articulated a legitimate
nondiscriminatory reason for its action. Specifically, the record reveals
that as a condition of permanent employment all of the employees hired on
a temporary basis, were required to pass a drug test, Physical Efficiency
Battery (PEB), firearms proficiency test and a background investigation.
The record reveals that complainant failed his second attempt at the PEB,
and the firearms test.
In his request for consideration, complainant argued that Black
employees were given latitude, were excused from discipline for serious
misconduct and were generally treated in a permissive fashion, while
complainant, a White employee, was treated in a strict and unforgiving
fashion. Complainant also contends that it was not realistic or fair to
limit the comparison employees to the extremely limited pool of temporary
employees. We conclude that complainant failed to raise any argument or
evidence not previously considered in rendering the appellate decision.
Therefore, he failed to show that the appellate decision involved a
clearly erroneous interpretation of law or would have a substantial
impact on the policies, practices, or operations of the agency.
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. 01993136 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 31, 2002
__________________
Date