LaShawn R. Rozier, Complainant,v.Gale A. Norton, Secretary, Department of the Interior, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionNov 15, 2006
0120055463 (E.E.O.C. Nov. 15, 2006)

0120055463

11-15-2006

LaShawn R. Rozier, Complainant, v. Gale A. Norton, Secretary, Department of the Interior, Agency.


LaShawn R. Rozier,

Complainant,

v.

Gale A. Norton,

Secretary,

Department of the Interior,

Agency.

Appeal No. 01200554631

Agency No. FNP2004019

DECISION

Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405, the Commission accepts complainant's

appeal from the agency's July 13, 2005 final decision in the

above-entitled matter. Complainant alleged that the agency discriminated

against her on the bases of race (African-American), color (Black),

and reprisal for prior protected EEO activity under an EEO statute that

was unspecified in the record when:

(1) She was subjected to harassment and treated differently than

similarly situated employees when she was placed on leave restrictions

(March 31, 2003);

(2) She was placed on a detail assignment to the Fee Management

Program (August

2003);

(3) She was subjected to harassment and treated differently than

similarly situated White employees regarding the leave policies (August

2003 and ongoing). For example,

(a) She became aware that her supervisor made an inquiry to a

non-government entity regarding her truthfulness on a leave request

(November 7, 2003); and

(b) She was required to provide additional documentation regarding her

leave requests, and this requirement did not apply to other similarly

situated employees (August 2003 and ongoing);

(4) She was discriminated against on the basis of reprisal when the

agency proposed to remove her from employment.2

After a review of the record in its entirety, including consideration

of all statements submitted on appeal, it is the decision of the Equal

Employment Opportunity Commission to affirm the agency's final decision

because the preponderance of the evidence of record does not establish

that discrimination occurred.3

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

___11-15-06_______________

Date

1 Due to a new data system, your case has been redesignated with the

above referenced appeal number.

2 Although the agency did not list claim (4) as a claim in the

"allegations" portion of its decision, it did analyze said claim in

its decision. See Agency decision, pp 13-17.

3 The agency dismissed claim (1) as untimely because complainant failed

to contact an EEO Counselor within 45 days of the incident; however,

it analyzed the claim on the merits. See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.105(a)(1)

and .107(a)(2). Similarly, it dismissed complainant's claim of hostile

work environment from 2001 to August 2003 as untimely. Id. The agency

specifically found that complainant could not show that her claim

of hostile work environment was part of a continuing violation since

she was under different supervision during the relevant time period.

The Commission finds that the agency properly dismissed the above

stated claims as untimely pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.105(a)(1)

and .107(a)(2).

??

??

??

??

2

0120055463

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

Office of Federal Operations

P. O. Box 19848

Washington, D.C. 20036

4

0120055463