05A30157
03-04-2003
Stanley P. Laber, Complainant, v. Donald H. Rumsfeld, Secretary, Department of Defense, Agency.
Stanley P. Laber v. Department of Defense
05A30157
March 4, 2003
.
Stanley P. Laber,
Complainant,
v.
Donald H. Rumsfeld,
Secretary,
Department of Defense,
Agency.
Request No. 05A30157
Appeal No. 01A03799
Agency No. EU-95-19
Hearing No. 100-97-7738X
DENIAL OF REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
Stanley P. Laber (complainant) timely initiated a request to the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) to reconsider
the decision in Stanley P. Laber v. Department of Defense, EEOC Appeal
No. 01A03799 (June 28, 2001). 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). However, 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
(rev. Nov. 9, 1999), at 9-17.
In the underlying complaint, complainant alleged that he and his minor
dependents were discriminated against on the basis of their religion
(Orthodox Jew) in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
(Title VII), as amended, 42 U.S.C. � 2000e et seq., when he learned
that his September 1994, requests for approval of non-Department of
Defense schools in Israel were not approved by the Department of Defense
Dependents Schools in Europe, as indicated by a letter dated November
9, 1994. The Commission affirmed the agency's final order finding that
complainant was neither subjected to disparate treatment, nor denied
religious accommodation, based on his religion.
In his request for reconsideration, complainant contends that the decision
�involved a clearly erroneous interpretation of material fact or law�
in three respects:
The finding that �the agency engaged in an effort to find [c]omplainant a
reasonable accommodation for his religious requirements� is contradicted
by an agency witness who stated that she treated complainant's request
not as one for religious accommodation, but as being based on a
�personal preference� and that she was not familiar with the religious
accommodations provisions of Title VII;
Unsupervised correspondence courses for the children is not a reasonable
accommodation for complainant's religion because this provides an
inadequate education for complainant's children; and
There is no evidence in the record that the accommodation proposed by
complainant would cause any hardship to the agency.
This Commission carefully considered all of the record evidence at the
time it rendered the initial decision in question, and complainant has
offered no persuasive reason why this decision should be reconsidered now.
Therefore, 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. 01A03799 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
March 4, 2003
__________________
Date