05a21032
10-16-2002
Janice K. Bowden, Complainant, v. Anthony J. Principi, Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs, Agency.
Janice K. Bowden v. Department of Veterans Affairs
05A21032
10/16/02
.
Janice K. Bowden,
Complainant,
v.
Anthony J. Principi,
Secretary,
Department of Veterans Affairs,
Agency.
Request No. 05A21032
Appeal No. 01A12975
Agency No. 200L1726
DENIAL OF REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
Janice K. Bowden (complainant) timely initiated a request to the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) to reconsider
the decision in Janice K. Bowden v. Department of Veterans Affairs, EEOC
Appeal No. 01A12975 (June 26, 2002). 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 her complaint, complainant claims that she was subjected to
discrimination on the bases of disability and reprisal for prior EEO
activity when:
On March 2, 1994, the EEO Manager coerced complainant into signing a
settlement agreement.
On March 25, 1994, complainant was counseled regarding her work
performance. However, before this date, she claims she had good
performance evaluations.
On April 11, 1994, the Director of the agency unfairly put complainant
on a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP), critiqued her performance,
and informed her that as long as he was her supervisor she would not
get good evaluations and the best thing for her to do is leave the agency.
On April 15, 1994, the Director wrote her up on her PIP report that she
was distraught and asked to leave work, although the complainant claims
the Director suggested she leave work early because it was not busy.
On April 20, 1994, the Director reported that complainant was gone for
ten minutes.
On April 29, 1994, complainant was written up for remaining at a the
control panel inputting a patient's information in the machine while
another technologist went into the patient's room.
From April 1994 through July 1994, complainant was subjected to repeated
daily scrutiny for her daily activities.
On May 9, 1994, complainant was improperly written up for not taking a
table down and not carrying a clipboard.
On May 11, 1994, complainant was written up for not watching the monitor.
On May 12, 1994, the Director asked complainant to report to him any
improper conduct by the other technologists, but when she did report
improper conduct, he disregarded her statements.
On May 20, 1994, complainant was falsely blamed for an error in recording
a patient's treatment.
On June 1, 1994, complainant complained to the Director about the way
she was treated by another technologist, but he ignored her complaint.
On June 10, 1994, complainant was written up for not putting a patient's
information in the computer database and for not checking up on a patient.
On August 7, 1994, complainant asserts was demoted and reassigned
to the Radiology Department as a Diagnostic Radiologic Technologist.
Complainant contends as a result of the demotion, she lost her within
grade increases. She claims prior to the demotion, her pay level was
GS-7/8/9. As a result, she should have gotten G-7 pay in August 1994,
G-8 pay in 1995, and G-9 pay in 1996.
The prior decision affirmed the agency's dismissal of her complaint for
stating the same claims as in a prior complaint, and for untimely EEO
Counselor contact. In her request, complainant reiterates that which
she argued on appeal, namely, that she was unclear that relief for a
1994 Performance Improvement Plan and demotion were not included in a
prior complaint in which she successfully proved she was subjected to
retaliation. See Bowden v. Veteran's Affairs, EEOC Appeal No. 01964351
(September 25, 1998). After a review of 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 failed to establish that the prior decision involved
a clearly erroneous interpretation of material law or fact. Complainant
was specifically informed in the AJ's February 1996 decision that the
Performance Improvement Plan should be the basis of a new complaint.
The decision in EEOC Appeal No. 01A12975 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
10/16/02
Date