05a20515
03-26-2003
Juanita Conley, Complainant, v. Hansford T. Johnson, Acting Secretary, Department of the Navy, Agency.
Juanita Conley v. Department of the Navy
05A20515
March 26, 2003
.
Juanita Conley,
Complainant,
v.
Hansford T. Johnson,
Acting Secretary,
Department of the Navy,
Agency.
Request No. 05A20515
Appeal No. 01A20166
Agency No. DON-01-00030-02
DENIAL OF REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
Juanita Conley (complainant) timely initiated a request to the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) to reconsider
the decision in Juanita Conley v. Department of the Navy, EEOC Appeal
No. 01A20166 (February 14, 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).
On August 7, 2001, complainant filed a formal complaint claiming that she
was discriminated against on the bases of race, sex, age and in reprisal
for prior protected activity. In its final decision dated September 6,
2001, the agency determined that the complaint was comprised of two
claims, identified as follows:
(a) complainant was directed by her supervisor on May 17, 2001, to
perform an administrative task; and
(b) that direction was repeated and she was threatened with discipline
by a memorandum from her supervisor dated June 28, 2001.
The agency dismissed the two claims for failure to state a claim.
Moreover, the agency was not persuaded by complainant's assertion that
she was subjected to a continuing practice of harassment, as documented
by a prior EEO complaint (Case No. 00-00030-004) and the events set
forth in claims (a) and (b) of the instant complaint. The agency noted
that the prior complaint, which had been investigated and was pending a
decision, concerned specific incidents of disparate treatment. Finally,
the agency determined that claims (a) and (b) were not sufficient severe
and pervasive to state a claim of discriminatory harassment. Complainant
appealed the agency's decision to the Commission.
The previous decision affirmed the agency's dismissal for failure to state
a claim. See Conley v. Department of the Navy, EEOC Appeal No. 01A20166
(Feb. 14, 2001). With respect to claim (a), the Commission noted that
being directed by a supervisor to perform a specific task does not
state a claim. Regarding claim (b), the record did not establish that
complainant was issued a discipline. The Commission found that because
the incident concerned only a proposed act, it failed to state a claim.
In complainant's request for reconsideration she reiterates previously
made arguments. Complainant contends that her complaint addressed a
continuing pattern of discrimination that resulted in a hostile work
environment, and that the agency erroneously fragmented her claim into two
incidents. Complainant cites her prior complaint (Case No. 00-00030-004),
as establishing the basis for the instant complaint.
In response, the agency contends that complainant has failed to meet
the request for reconsideration criteria and asks that the prior
decision stand. With respect to complainant's assertions regarding
her prior EEO complaint (Case No. 00-00030-004), the agency states
that the investigation was completed approximately three months before
complainant sought EEO counseling on the instant complaint. Further,
an agency decision finding no discrimination was issued on December 17,
2001, which complainant appealed to the Commission. The agency argues
that it would be inappropriate to unite the instant claims with events
from the prior complaint, which occurred in June or July of 2000, almost
one year earlier. The agency also disputes complainant's contention that
it failed to address her claim of harassment. In its September 6, 2001
decision, argues the agency, it reasoned that either on their own or as
supporting a claim of harassment neither claim (a) or (b) stated a claim.
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. The decision in EEOC
Appeal No. 01A20166 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
March 26, 2003
__________________
Date