ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
On September 19, 2006, the Board of Directors (“Board”) issued a Decision and Order (“Decision”) in the above-captioned case, affirming the hearing officer=s dismissal of Counts II and III. The majority, with one member dissenting, affirmed the hearing officer=s finding of insufficient evidence to support Count I=s claim of retaliation. On October 13, 2006, Richard Duncan (“Duncan” or “Petitioner”) filed a Request for Reconsideration of the Board=s Decision. On October 19, 2006, the Office of the Architect of the Capitol (“AOC” or “Respondent”) filed a motion in opposition to Petitioner’s request, asking the Board to strike the petition. After a full review of the pleadings, the Board denies both the request to strike the motion, as well as the request to reconsider.
I. Background
Duncan filed a claim against the AOC, alleging three counts of retaliation resulting from his refusal to remove his hard hat. The AOC filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which Hearing Officer Sylvia Bacon granted. On petition for review, the Board reversed the hearing officer and remanded the case for further proceedings.
Subsequent to the remand, a hearing was held on all three counts, and Hearing Officer Bacon issued a judgment for the AOC on all counts. Petitioner filed a petition for review, and the AOC filed a response. On September 19, 2006, the Board issued its, affirming the hearing officer’s dismissal of Counts II and III. The majority also affirmed the hearing officer’s finding of insufficient evidence to support Count I’s claim of retaliation. One Board member dissented from this ruling.
II. Standard of Review
Section 8.02 of the Office of Compliance Procedural Rules states that a party may move for reconsideration of a Board decision where the party can establish that the Board has “overlooked or misapprehended points of law or fact.”
