01A13146_r
09-25-2002
Janice Johnson, Complainant, v. John Seal, Acting Executive Director, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, Agency.
Janice Johnson v. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation
01A13146
September 25, 2002
.
Janice Johnson,
Complainant,
v.
John Seal,
Acting Executive Director,
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A13146
Agency No. 99-01
Hearing No. 100-A0-7256X
DECISION
Complainant appealed to this Commission from the agency's final action
to implement the findings of an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). In her
decision, the AJ determined that complainant was not subjected to unlawful
discrimination. In her complaint, complainant alleged harm on the bases
of race (African-American), color (black), sex (female), and age when:
She was not selected for a GS-510-13 Accountant position in February
1999; and
Complainant was subjected to a hostile work environment in 1998 -
1999.<1>
Concerning claim (2), complainant contends that the harassment included
her supervisor taking away some of her duties in 1998, downgrading
her performance because she had less work to perform as a result,
denigrating her abilities in front of coworkers on a few occasions
in 1999, directing complainant to relinquish her cash reconciliation
duties to a lower-graded (GS-7) employee, instructing her to train the
GS-7 employee on how to perform cash reconciliation duties, assigning
the GS-7 employee's refund processing duty to complainant, and holding
complainant responsible for refund duties for which she did not receive
training. The agency does not deny that these instances occurred, with
the exception of denigrating complainant's performance, but provides
legitimate reasoning for their occurrence. Complainant provides no
evidence to bring the agency's articulated reasoning into question.
After a review of the record in its entirety, including consideration
of all statements submitted on appeal, the Commission finds that
the Administrative Judge's issuance of a decision without a hearing
was appropriate, and a preponderance of the record evidence does not
establish that discrimination occurred. Accordingly, the agency's final
action is AFFIRMED.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0701)
The Commission may, in its discretion, reconsider the decision in this
case if the complainant or the agency submits a written request containing
arguments or evidence which tend to establish 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.
Requests to reconsider, with supporting statement or brief, must be filed
with the Office of Federal Operations (OFO) within thirty (30) calendar
days of receipt of this decision or within twenty (20) calendar days of
receipt of another party's timely request for reconsideration. See 29
C.F.R. � 1614.405; Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive for
29 C.F.R. Part 1614 (EEO MD-110), 9-18 (November 9, 1999). All requests
and arguments must be submitted to the Director, Office of Federal
Operations, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, P.O. Box 19848,
Washington, D.C. 20036. In the absence of a legible postmark, the
request to reconsider shall be deemed timely filed if it is received by
mail within five days of the expiration of the applicable filing period.
See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.604. The request or opposition must also include
proof of service on the other party.
Failure to file within the time period will result in dismissal of your
request for reconsideration as untimely, unless extenuating circumstances
prevented the timely filing of the request. Any supporting documentation
must be submitted with your request for reconsideration. The Commission
will consider requests for reconsideration filed after the deadline only
in very limited circumstances. See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.604(c).
COMPLAINANT'S RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (S0900)
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. If you
file a request to reconsider and also file a civil action, filing a civil
action will terminate the administrative processing of your complaint.
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
September 25, 2002
__________________
Date
1Complainant filed a separate appeal, EEOC Appeal No. 01996273, concerning
the agency's definition of her claims. Complainant argued that her
nonselection and harassment claims should be analyzed separately.
The Commission administratively closed the appeal, and remanded the
matter to the AJ. Although the AJ did not specifically analyze the
definition of complainant's claims, she addressed the claims separately
� reviewing complainant's nonselection for disparate treatment, and the
remaining claims under a harassment analysis. Therefore, the Commission
finds no reason to disturb the definition of her claims.