0520110186
06-24-2011
Ronald Cole, Complainant, v. Robert M. Gates, Secretary, Department of Defense (Army & Air Force Exchange Service), Agency.
Ronald Cole,
Complainant,
v.
Robert M. Gates,
Secretary,
Department of Defense
(Army & Air Force Exchange Service),
Agency.
Request No. 0520110186
Appeal No. 0120103018
Agency Nos. AAFES 96.013, 96.096, 02.081,
03.076, 05.131, 06.126
DENIAL
Complainant timely requested reconsideration of the decision in Ronald
Cole v. Army & Air Force Exchange Service, EEOC Appeal No. 0120103018
(November 17, 2010). 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, the Commission affirmed the May 10, 2010
decision of the Agency, which found that it had not breached the
settlement agreement of January 17, 2008. In its May 10, 2010 decision,
the Agency conducted a comprehensive review of Complainant’s history
of EEO complaints against the Agency, the decisions previously issued by
both the Agency and this Commission with respect to those complaints,
and its determination regarding Complainant’s claim that the Agency
had breached various settlement agreements, most recently, the agreement
dated January 17, 2008. The decision in EEOC Appeal No. 0120103018 found
that the Agency had properly determined that it was not in breach of
the January 17, 2008 settlement agreement. We declined Complainant’s
request to set aside our prior decisions regarding Complainant’s claims
of breach for settlement agreements signed on January 15, 1997 and June
24, 2004. We also noted that various of Complainant’s other claims
were the subject of subsequently filed complaints.1
In his request for reconsideration, Complainant first states that he did
not intend to present for the Commission’s consideration the alleged
violation of the January 17, 2008 settlement agreement. He then detailed
his disagreement with Agency actions dating back to 1997.2 The Agency
did not specifically respond to Complainant’s arguments on request
for reconsideration.
We find that Complainant’s request for reconsideration fails to show
that our previous decision involved a clearly erroneous interpretation of
fact or law, or that it would have a substantial impact on the policies,
practices or operations of the Agency. Complainant advanced many of
the same arguments in his request for reconsideration as were advanced,
and considered, in the initial appeal, and in his numerous previous
appeals to the Commission. We note that a request for reconsideration
is not a second form of appeal. E.g., Lopez v. Dep’t of Agriculture,
EEOC Request No. 0520070736 (Aug. 20, 2007). Complainant does not
otherwise show that the previous decision was clearly erroneous.
After reconsidering 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. 0120103018 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
June 24, 2011
Date
1 We note that those complaints, Agency Nos. AAFES 10.001 and 10.050,
were the subject of Cole v. Army & Air Force Exchange Service, EEOC
Appeal No. 0120110268 (March 8, 2011).
2 In his submissions in support of his request for reconsideration,
Complainant requests that the Commission “assign an attorney to my
case,” presumably in order to represent his interests and argue on his
behalf. The Commission does not provide legal counsel to complainants at
any stage of the administrative complaint process found at 29 C.F.R. Part
1614.
---------------
------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
------------------------------------------------------------
2
0520110186
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
2
0520110186