05980901
11-01-2000
Sahag Y. Tchakmakjian Complainant, v. William S. Cohen, Secretary, Department of Defense, (Defense Logistics Agency), Agency.
Sahag Y. Tchakmakjian v. Dept. of Defense
05980901
November 1, 2000
.
Sahag Y. Tchakmakjian
Complainant,
v.
William S. Cohen,
Secretary,
Department of Defense,
(Defense Logistics Agency),
Agency.
Request No. 05980901
Appeal No. 01964662
Agency No. XQ-94-015
Hearing No. 340-95-3172X
DENIAL OF REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
On June 28, 1998, Sahag Y. Tchakmakjian (hereinafter referred to as
complainant) initiated a request to the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (EEOC) to reconsider the decision in Sahag Y. Tchakmakjian
v. Dept. of Defense (DLA), EEOC Appeal No. 01964662 (June 5, 1998). EEOC
regulations provide that the Commissioners may, in their discretion,
reconsider any previous decision where the party demonstrates that:
(1) the previous decision involved clearly erroneous interpretation
of material fact or law; or (2) the decision will have a substantial
impact on the policies, practices or operation of the agency. See 29
C.F.R. �1614.405(b).<1>
The record indicates that complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging
discrimination based on national origin (Armenian, born in Syria) when
his Quality Assurance Specialist position was not upgraded from GS-9 to
GS-11. The agency investigated the matter and complainant requested a
hearing. The Administrative Judge (AJ) notified the parties that there
did not appear to be any disputed material facts and that she planned to
issue a decision without a hearing. The AJ sent a list of the material
facts to each party. Complainant's attorney responded, stating that
his �client is in agreement� with the facts as stated but desired to
add two findings of fact. The AJ accepted the two findings of fact, and
thereafter issued a recommended decision, finding no discrimination which
was adopted by the agency. The AJ noted that 12 out of 35 employees
had their positions upgraded, but that complainant's supervisor did
not recommend any GS-9 employee for upgrade. Complainant appealed
the agency's decision and the previous decision affirmed the agency's
decision without substantive comment.
In his request for reconsideration, complainant argues that he should have
had a hearing, that he was similarly situated to the other employees whom
he indicates were preselected, and that the AJ failed to properly consider
the evidence. Upon review of the record, the Commission finds that the
AJ's recommended findings and conclusions properly summarized the relevant
facts and referenced the appropriate regulations, policies, and laws.
We conclude that complainant failed to establish by preponderant evidence
that any of the agency's actions were a pretext to mask discrimination
based on his national origin.
After a review of complainant's request to reconsider, the previous
decision, and the entire record, the Commission finds that complainant's
request does not meet the criteria of 29 C.F.R. �1614.405(b), and
it is the decision of the Commission to deny complainant's request.
The decision of the Commission in Appeal Nos. 01964662 remains
the Commission's final decision. There is no further right of
administrative appeal from a decision of the Commission on a 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
November 1, 2000
__________________
Date
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
For timeliness purposes, the Commission will presume that this decision
was received within five (5) calendar days after it was mailed. I certify
that this decision was mailed to complainant, complainant's representative
(if applicable), and the agency on:
__________________
Date
______________________________
1On November 9, 1999, revised regulations governing the EEOC's federal
sector complaint process went into effect. These regulations apply
to all federal sector EEO complaints pending at any stage in the
administrative process. The regulations, as amended, may also be found
at the Commission's website at www.eeoc.gov.