05-2008-0260_Glover
06-09-2008
Willie Glover, Complainant, v. Dr. Donald C. Winter, Secretary, Department of the Navy, Agency.
Willie Glover,
Complainant,
v.
Dr. Donald C. Winter,
Secretary,
Department of the Navy,
Agency.
Request No. 0520080260
Appeal No. 0120055659
Agency No. 0465886024
DENIAL
Complainant timely requested reconsideration of the decision in Willie
Glover v. Department of the Navy, EEOC Appeal No. 0120055659 (December
5, 2007). 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).
At all times relevant to this complaint, complainant worked as an
Aerospace Engineer, GS-0861-13, at the Naval Air Depot in Jacksonville,
Florida. Complainant filed a formal complaint of discrimination on
April 24, 2003 alleging discrimination in violation of Title VII of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. � 2000e et seq.,
on the bases of race (Black) and in reprisal for prior EEO activity
when: (1) on October 27, 2002, the agency failed to advance his career
to the GS-14 level when he was not interviewed or selected for the
position of Supervisory Aerospace Engineer, GS-861-14; (2) on May 23,
2003, the agency failed to comply with a 1994 settlement agreement by
not detailing complainant to a vacant GS-14 position, thereby making
complainant ineligible for the Supervisory Materials Engineer position,
GS-0806-14; and (3) the agency created a conflict of interest when the
agency's Office of Counsel participated in the complaint process and
suppressed violations of prohibited personnel practices.
In his request for reconsideration, complainant asserts that the agency
improperly fragmented his claims. With respect to Claim 1, complainant
asserts that he was denied the opportunity to acquire the training,
skills and experience identified by management to compete for the
Supervisory Aerospace Engineering, as well as other GS-14 level positions.
Complainant also argues that the agency addressed his non-selection
for the rotational assignment in the Materials Engineering division
without addressing any of the other rotational assignments established
by the agency.
With respect to Claim 2, complainant argues that the agency engaged in a
pattern and practice of discrimination in excluding him from rotational
assignments and failing to enforce the terms of his settlement agreement.
Although complainant agrees that the 1994 settlement agreement did not
authorize a specific rotational assignment, he argues that the agency
used the agreement to exclude him from participating in rotations by
using specific competency criteria established by the agency to justify
its actions. Complainant also argues that his lack of supervisory
materials engineering experience was an invalid reason to exclude him
from this rotation.
With respect to Claim 3, complainant seems to argue that he was deprived
of due process when agency's local attorneys were permitted to represent
the agency's interests while retaining the power to dismiss complainant's
claims on procedural grounds.
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. 0120055659 remains the
Commission's final decision. There is no further right of administrative
appeal on the decision of the Commission on this request.1
COMPLAINANT'S RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (P0408)
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 (Z0408)
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
June 9, 2008
__________________
Date
1 Contrary to complainant's assertions, the agency's final decision
accurately characterized and addressed complainant's allegations which
were sufficiently investigated by the agency. We note that complainant
failed to present sufficient evidence in support of his claims.
??
??
??
??
3
0520080260
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P. O. Box 19848
Washington, D.C. 20036