ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
On January 19, 2007, the Board of Directors issued a Decision and Order (“Decision”) in the above-captioned case, affirming the hearing officer’s finding that Petitioner failed to establish a prima facie case of retaliation in Counts I and II, and as a result, could not establish a hostile work environment based on the alleged retaliatory conduct, as pled in Count III. On February 9, 2007, Petitioner filed a Request for Reconsideration of the Board’s Decision. After a full review of the Petitioner’s request and supporting memorandum, the Board denies the request.
I. Background
Robert Solomon filed a claim against the Architect of the Capitol, alleging two claims of retaliation, and one claim of retaliatory hostile work environment, in violation of Section 207(a) of the Congressional Accountability Act, 2 U.S.C. 1317. The hearing officer held a hearing on the matter and found that Solomon had failed to meet his burden of establishing retaliation or a hostile work environment.
Solomon filed a petition for review, and the Architect filed a response. Upon consideration of the pleadings and the record evidence, the Board summarily affirmed the hearing officer’s determination that discrimination was not established. The Board differed with the hearing officer with respect to his rationale that because Petitioner continued with his protected activity, the AOC’s actions amounted to a “petty slight” or a “trivial annoyance” and were not “reasonably likely to deter” protected activity. However, because the Board ultimately agreed with the hearing officer’s determination that there was insufficient evidence to establish a causal connection between Petitioner’s protected activity and Architect Hantman’s lack of response to Petitioner’s formal grievance, the difference of views on the protected activity element was of no consequence.
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.”
