05980771
12-20-2000
Hazel Clark v. Department of Veterans Affairs
05980771
December 20, 2000
.
Hazel Clark,
Complainant,
v.
Hershel W. Gober,
Acting Secretary,
Department of Veterans Affairs,
Agency.
Request No. 05980771
Appeal No. 01962827
Agency No. 94-2004
Hearing No. 280-95-4215X
DENIAL OF REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
The complainant initiated a request to the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (EEOC or Commission) to reconsider the decision in Hazel
Clark v. Department of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Appeal No. 01962827
(April 2, 1998).<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).
In the underlying complaint, complainant, a GS-07 Dental Hygienist,
alleged that she was discriminated against based on race (Black) and
in reprisal for prior EEO activity when, on May 4 and 5, 1994, upon
requesting light duty, she was reassigned from the Dental Service to
a light duty position in the Textile Care Section (linen room) of the
agency's Environmental Management Service in the agency's St. Louis,
Missouri facility, rather than assigned to a light duty position within
the Dental Service. Following a hearing, an EEOC Administrative Judge
(AJ) found no discrimination or retaliation, and the AJ's findings and
conclusions were adopted by the final agency decision, which was affirmed
by the Commission in our previous decision.
In her request for reconsideration, complainant contends: (1) the light
duty assignment policy in effect at the relevant time was Memorandum
05-31 dated June 7, 1991, not the 1995 policy referenced by the Chief
of Dental Services in his testimony; and (2) the record of investigation
states that in April, 1993 and August, 1994, light duty assignments were
approved for two different white employees within Dental Services.
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.
Complainant has not raised any argument or evidence in her request for
reconsideration not previously considered by the Commission. Moreover,
for the reasons set forth in the AJ's findings and conclusions, even
assuming arguendo the contentions raised in complainant's request for
reconsideration are credited, complainant has not satisfied her burden
of proof to establish discrimination or retaliation by a preponderance
of the evidence. Accordingly, the decision in EEOC Appeal No. 01962827
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
December 20, 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.