Carmen M. Kaplan, Complainant,v.Donna E. Shalala, Secretary, Department of Health & Human Services, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionMar 29, 2000
05a00036 (E.E.O.C. Mar. 29, 2000)

05a00036

03-29-2000

Carmen M. Kaplan, Complainant, v. Donna E. Shalala, Secretary, Department of Health & Human Services, Agency.


Carmen M. Kaplan v. Department of Health & Human Services

05A00036

March 29, 2000

Carmen M. Kaplan, )

Complainant, )

)

v. ) Request No. 05A00036

) Appeal No. 01973576

Donna E. Shalala, ) Agency No. NIH-120-94

Secretary, ) Hearing # 120-95-6767X

Department of Health & Human Services, )

Agency. )

)

DENIAL OF REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

On October 12, 1999, the complainant timely initiated a request to the

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Commission) to reconsider the

decision in Carmen M. Kaplan v. Department of Health & Human Services,

EEOC Appeal No. 01973576 (September 7, 1999 ).<1> EEOC regulations

provide that the Commission may, in its discretion, reconsider any

previous decision. 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,656 (1999) (to be codified

and hereinafter referred to as EEOC Regulation 29 C.F.R. �1614.405(b)).

The party requesting reconsideration must submit written argument

or evidence which tends to establish one or more of the following

two criteria: the appellate decision involved a clearly erroneous

interpretation of material fact or law; or the decision will have a

substantial impact on the policies, practices or operations of the agency.

After a review of the request for reconsideration, the previous decision,

and the entire record, the Commission finds that the's complainant's

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.<2> The decision in

EEOC Appeal No. 01973576 (September 7, 1999) remains the Commission's

final decision. There is no further right of administrative appeal from

a decision of the Commission on this request for reconsideration.

COMPLAINANT'S RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (P1199)

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:

March 29, 2000

________________ ____________________________

Date Carlton M. Hadden, Acting Director

Office of Federal Operations

1On November 9, 1999, revised regulations governing the EEOC's federal

sector complaint process went into effect. These regulations apply to all

federal sector EEO complaints pending at any stage in the administrative

process. Consequently, the Commission will apply the revised regulations

found at 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644 (1999), where applicable, in deciding the

present request. The regulations, as amended, may also be found at

the Commission's website at www.eeoc.gov.

2The complainant continues to object, among other things, to the

Administrative Judge's allegedly erroneous failure to address a

fifth claim. However, the Administrative Judge represented without

objection at the hearing that the parties had agreed at a prehearing

conference that four issues were raised by the complainant's complaint.

(Hearing Transcript at pages 4-5). The four claims had been identified

in a prior Commission decision on the complaint. See Kaplan v. Department

of Health and Human Services, EEOC Appeal No. 01942866 (June 16, 1994).