0520070720
08-17-2007
Julia Kaleem, Complainant, v. Pete Geren, Acting Secretary, Department of the Army, Agency.
Julia Kaleem,
Complainant,
v.
Pete Geren,
Acting Secretary,
Department of the Army,
Agency.
Request No. 0520070720
Appeal No. 0120063527
Agency No. ARHQOA06FEB00391
DENIAL
Complainant timely requested reconsideration of the decision in Julia
Kaleem v. Department of the Army, EEOC Appeal No. 0120063527 (June
7, 2007). EEOC Regulations provide that the Commission may, in its
discretion, grant a request to 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 underlying complaint, complainant alleged that she was subjected
to harassment in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,
as amended, 42 U.S.C. � 2000e et seq. Complainant filed a complaint
with the agency and the agency issued a final agency decision (FAD)
dismissing complainant's complaint pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.107(a)(1)
on the grounds that she failed to state a claim. Complainant appealed the
agency's decision to the Commission. In Kaleem v. Department of the Army,
EEOC Appeal No. 0120063527 (June 7, 2007), the Commission affirmed the
agency's dismissal of the complaint finding that complainant failed to
establish that the complained of incidents were sufficiently severe or
pervasive to state a claim of harassment. Complainant filed a Request
for Reconsideration with the Commission.
In her request for reconsideration, complainant argues that the Commission
erred when it excluded her fourth claim, which involved the agency
issuing complainant a memorandum of counseling on February 23, 2006.
Further, complainant argues for the first time that her claims were
erroneously framed by the agency to exclude other incidents and argues
that the incidents were also claims of disparate treatment in addition
to the claim of harassment. The agency requests that the Commission
deny complainant's request for reconsideration.
In response to complainant's contention that the Commission erred by
excluding the incident involving the memorandum of counseling on February
23, 2006, we find that complainant has failed to establish that either
the underlying decision involved a clearly erroneous interpretation
of material fact or law; or that it will have a substantial impact on
the policies, practices, or operations of the agency. The Commission's
decision in Kaleem v. Department of the Army, EEOC Appeal No. 0120063527
(June 7, 2007), clearly addressed her claim regarding the memorandum
issued on February 23, 2006. The Commission found that this issue failed
to state a claim because complainant was unable to establish that she
was aggrieved. Thus, we find that complainant has failed to establish
that the Commission omitted this incident as she alleged.
With regard to complainant's contentions that the agency erroneously
framed the claims to exclude claims of disparate treatment and excluded
other incidents of harassment, we note that complainant argues this for
the first time in her brief in support of her request for reconsideration.
We remind complainant that a "request for reconsideration is not a second
appeal to the Commission." Equal Employment Opportunity Management
Directive for 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 (EEO MD-110), 9-17 (November 9, 1999).
Complainant should have raised such contentions in her initial appeal,
and may not do so now. As such, we again find that complainant failed
to establish that the previous decision involved a clearly erroneous
interpretation of material fact or law; or the will have a substantial
impact on the policies, practices, or operations of the agency.
After reconsidering the previous decision and the entire record, the
Commission finds that complainant's 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. 0120063527 remains the
Commission's final decision. There is no further right of administrative
appeal on the decision of the Commission on this request.
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
___8-17-07_______________
Date
2
0520070720
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P. O. Box 19848
Washington, D.C. 20036
3
0520070720