05A00304-et_al
04-19-2001
Terrence A. Daniels, Complainant, v. Paul H. O'Neill, Secretary, Department of the Treasury, Agency.
Terrence A. Daniels v. Department of the Treasury
05A00304; 05A00305; 05A00306; 05A00307; 05A00308; 05A00309; 05A00310
April 19, 2001
.
Terrence A. Daniels,
Complainant,
v.
Paul H. O'Neill,
Secretary,
Department of the Treasury,
Agency.
Request Nos. 05A00304; 05A00305; 05A00306;
05A00307; 05A00308; 05A00309; 05A00310
Appeal Nos. 01982115; 01982710; 01982712;
01983153; 01983154; 01991331; 01993685
Agency Nos. TD 96-1221; TD 96-1297; TD 96-1302;
TD 96-1307; TD 96-1052; TD 96-1119; TD 96-1
DENIAL OF REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
Complainant initiated a request to the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (EEOC or Commission) to reconsider the decision in Terrence
A. Daniels v. Department of the Treasury, EEOC Appeal Nos. 01982115;
01982710; 01982712; 01983153; 01983154; 01991331; 01993685 (November
23, 1999). 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).
In the underlying complaints, complainant alleged that he was retaliated
against, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
(Title VII), as amended, 42 U.S.C. � 2000e et seq., when:
(1) he was denied a detail into a night-shift management position for
the 1996 filing season;
(2) he was issued a Memorandum of Alternative Discipline on March 28,
1996, for a memorandum which he wrote and management perceived as
threatening;
(3) on April 24, 1996, he was issued an official Letter of Reprimand
for the same allegedly threatening memorandum;
(4) on June 14, 1996, he received a low evaluation rating for the period
between July 1994 and April 1996;
(5) he was reassigned from the night shift effective June 23, 1996;
(6) he was charged with Absence Without Leave ("AWOL") on October 15,
1996;
(7) he was not given the opportunity to work nights between September
15 and 20, 1996;
(8) management refused to certify him for a management-entry-level
position for the 1997 filing season;
(9) on October 17, 1996, he was issued an official Letter of Reprimand
for not timely paying his 1993 taxes;
(10) he was involuntarily reassigned from the Processing Division to
the Compliance Division; and
(11) he received a low departure evaluation rating on May 10, 1997,
and a low annual evaluation rating on June 3, 1997.
Final agency decisions (FAD) were issued and generally concluded that
the agency articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its
actions. The previous decision issued by the Commission affirmed the
FADs, finding that complainant failed to establish by a preponderance of
the evidence that he was subjected to retaliatory disparate treatment.
The previous decision also found that complainant failed to present
sufficient evidence credible evidence establishing that he was subjected
to retaliatory harassment, when the allegations were considered as a
whole instead of individual complaints.
Together with his request for reconsideration, complainant filed a
motion to strike all affidavits of three management officials and
the final agency decision (FAD) for complaint number TD 97-1339,
and a motion to reverse EEOC's decision on appeal number 01993685.
Although our regulations do not provide for the filing of such motions,
we have construed complainant's filings as his brief in support of his
request for reconsideration, and have considered all arguments raised
therein accordingly.
After a review of complainant's arguments, 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. Complainant contends in his
briefs that affidavits submitted by agency officials are contradictory,
that the Commission misstated his position in its previous decision,
and that evidence of his alleged retaliation exists in the form of an
alleged admission from an agency official.
First, the alleged admission relied on by complainant does not amount
to an admission. Specifically, there is no evidence to support the
statement, nor is the alleged admission set forth in an affidavit.
Second, as to the allegedly contradictory affidavits, these affidavits
were closely considered in our previous decision. There was no clearly
erroneous interpretation of material fact or law, nor items which would
have a substantial impact on the policies, practices, or operations
of the agency. Finally, in arguing that the Commission misstated his
position, complainant has only reasserted arguments he made previously.
This too, fails to highlight a clearly erroneous interpretation of
material fact or law, or items which would have a substantial impact
on the policies, practices, or operations of the agency. Thus, the
decision for EEOC Appeal Nos. 01982115; 01982710; 01982712; 01983153;
01983154; 01991331; 01993685 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
April 19, 2001
__________________
Date