05a00935
11-29-2000
Debra W. Sheikh, Complainant, v. Kenneth S. Apfel, Commissioner, Social Security Administration, Agency.
Debra W. Sheikh v. Social Security Administration
05A00935
November 29, 2000
.
Debra W. Sheikh,
Complainant,
v.
Kenneth S. Apfel,
Commissioner,
Social Security Administration,
Agency.
Request No. 05A00935
Appeal No. 01993612
Agency No. 98-0059-SSA
DENIAL OF REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
The complainant initiated a request to the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (EEOC or Commission) to reconsider the decision in Debra
W. Sheikh v. Social Security Administration, EEOC Appeal No. 01993612
(May 18, 2000).<1> 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).
Complainant alleged that based on her race (Black), religion (Christian),
and retaliation (prior EEO activity), she was harassed on July 22, 1997,
when her sick leave was questioned. The appellate decision affirmed the
Final Agency Decision (FAD) which found that complainant's supervisor
(S1) met with complainant on July 22, 1997 and pointed out a highlighted
page of the Union contract which talked about leave abuse. However,
complainant stated in the record that her supervisor was not accusing her
of leave abuse but was concerned with the number of hours of leave that
complainant had used after returning from her vacation in May, 1997.
According to complainant's own statements, her supervisor did not
restrict her leave usage or discipline her in any manner. According to
the agency, complainant failed to show how she was harmed. However,
the agency went on to consider the agency's response to the allegations.
According to complainant's supervisor, she met with complainant because
she was concerned about the large amount of sick leave that complainant
had used in the prior two months. According to S1, complainant mentioned
that she was a private person. S1 stated that she told complainant that
she did not need to know any details about her leave usage. However,
S1 explained that she wanted to be kept informed of complainant's
schedule and that she might need a medical certificate at a later date.
The agency found this explanation, legitimate and non-discriminatory.
The agency also found no evidence of pretext or discriminatory animus.
Specifically, the record showed that complainant was absent 22 work-days
in a period of about two months. Complainant used four weeks of annual
leave prior to that. The agency found that S1 had a legitimate interest
in learning what complainant's work availability would be over the
coming period. The agency also noted that while complainant raised
numerous incidents of alleged harassment, none of the incidents cited
directly related to the events on July 22, 1997. More importantly,
the agency noted that complainant failed to present any evidence that
discriminatory animus played a role in S1's actions.
On request to reconsider, complaint argues that �the act of [her]
supervisor is not at issue in this case. The issue is retaliation by
harassment and restriction of the use of sick leave.�
After a review of the complainant's request for reconsideration, 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. The decision
in EEOC Appeal No. 01993612 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
November 29, 2000
__________________
Date
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 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 in deciding the
present appeal. The regulations, as amended, may also be found at the
Commission's website at www.eeoc.gov.