0520120296
11-30-2012
Roger C. Ferreira, Complainant, v. Ray Mabus, Secretary, Department of the Navy, Agency.
Roger C. Ferreira,
Complainant,
v.
Ray Mabus,
Secretary,
Department of the Navy,
Agency.
Request No. 0520120296
Appeal No. 0120113902
Agency No. 11-00244-02145
DENIAL
Complainant timely requested reconsideration of the decision in Roger C. Ferreira v. Department of the Navy, EEOC Appeal No. 0120113902 (January 23, 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).
Our previous decision affirmed the Agency's dismissal of Complainant's formal EEO complaint for failure to state a claim. Complainant had alleged that the Agency subjected him to discrimination on the basis of reprisal for prior EEO activity when his supervisor became angry and hostile during an April 14, 2011, meeting. In affirming the dismissal of the complaint, our previous decision found that the case involved an isolated and relatively minor incident and that the actions at issue would not deter a reasonable person from engaging in EEO activity. Accordingly, we concluded that Complainant had not set forth a viable claim of reprisal.
In his request for consideration, Complainant asserts that new evidence establishes that the Agency engaged in reprisal discrimination. Complainant, however, does not identify the new evidence or explain how such evidence would refute the finding that the complaint at issue here failed to state a claim. Instead, he simply includes a copy of an October 4, 2011, Notice of Acceptance and Dismissal of Claims involving a different EEO complaint. Complainant's appeal of the final agency decision on that complaint is currently pending before the Commission in Roger C. Ferreira v. Department of the Navy, EEOC Appeal No. 0120130092.
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; see, e.g., 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 (1) 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.
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. 0120113902 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
November 30, 2012
Date
2
0520120296
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
2
0520120296