05a10561
07-19-2001
B. Ivarine Williams, Complainant, v. John Ashcroft, Attorney General, Department of Justice (INS), Agency.
B. Ivarine Williams v. Department of Justice (INS)
05A10561
07-19-01
.
B. Ivarine Williams,
Complainant,
v.
John Ashcroft,
Attorney General,
Department of Justice (INS),
Agency.
Request No. 05A10561
Appeal No. 01A03147
Agency No. I-96-8096
Hearing No. 170-99-8258X
DECISION ON REQUEST TO RECONSIDER
On April 11, 2001, B. Ivarine Williams (complainant) timely initiated
a request to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to reconsider
the decision in B. Ivarine Williams v. John Ashcroft, Attorney General,
Department of Justice (INS), EEOC Appeal No. 01A03147 (March 22, 2001).
EEOC regulations provide that the Commission may, in its discretion,
reconsider any previous decision where the party demonstrates that:
(1) the previous decision involved a clearly erroneous interpretation of
material fact or law; or (2) the decision will have a substantial impact
on the policies, practices or operation of the agency. 29 C.F.R. �
1614.405(b).
Complainant claimed discrimination based on race (black), sex, and
reprisal when she was suspended in August 1996. The events of this
matter are set out in the previous decision. In her request, complainant
asserted that the Area Director was not a credible witness, having been
found not credible in an unrelated proceeding before another agency, and
that his management style evidenced a "plantation mentality." Also, for
the first time, complainant objected to the issuance of a decision without
a hearing, arguing that the Area Director's veracity was at issue.<1>
These arguments do not address the finding in the previous decision or
the decision of the Administrative Judge (AJ) that complainant failed to
demonstrate pretext, i.e., that the agency's reason for the suspension was
not the true reason and that it was based on prohibited considerations.
In addition, complainant contended that her union activity was equivalent
to prior EEO activity, and thus she stated a prima facie case based
on reprisal. Engaging in union activity is not a protected activity,
and complainant did not claim that she raised claims of discrimination
during her union activity. See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.101(b).
Having reviewed complainant's request and the record herein, we find
that the request fails to meet any of the criteria of 29 C.F.R. �
1614.405(b), and it is the decision of the Commission to deny the request.
The decision of the Commission in EEOC Appeal No. 01A03147 (March 22,
2001) remains the Commission's final decision. There is no further
right of administrative appeal from a decision of the Commission on a
request for reconsideration.
STATEMENT OF COMPLAINANT'S RIGHTS - ON 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
___07-19-01_______________
Date
1The Commission's regulations provide that an AJ may issue findings and
conclusions without a hearing if �some or all material facts are not
in genuine dispute and there is no genuine issue as to credibility.�
29 C.F.R. � 1614.109(e)(1). The U.S. Supreme Court has held that
summary judgment is appropriate where a court determines that, given
the substantive legal and evidentiary standards that apply to the case,
there exists no genuine issue of material fact. Anderson v. Liberty
Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986). In ruling on a motion for summary
judgment, a court does not sit as a fact finder. Id. The evidence of
the non-moving party must be believed at the summary judgment stage, and
all justifiable inferences must be drawn in the non-moving party's favor.
Id. A disputed issue of fact is "genuine" if the evidence is such that
a reasonable fact finder could find in favor of the non-moving party.
Celotex v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986); Oliver v. Digital
Equip. Corp., 846 F. 2D 103, 105 (1st Cir. 1988). A fact is "material"
if it has the potential to affect the outcome of the case. If a case can
only be resolved by weighing conflicting evidence, summary judgment is
not appropriate. In the context of an administrative proceeding under
Title VII, an AJ may properly consider summary judgment only upon a
determination that the record has been adequately developed.