05A30376
03-18-2003
Lillian R. Duzenski-Peterson, Complainant, v. Spencer Abraham, Secretary, Department of Energy, Agency.
Lillian R. Duzenski-Peterson v. Department of Energy
05A30376
03-18-03
.
Lillian R. Duzenski-Peterson,
Complainant,
v.
Spencer Abraham,
Secretary,
Department of Energy,
Agency.
Request No. 05A30376
Appeal No. 01A05560
Agency Nos. SR95(19), SR95(51), SR95(12)
Hearing Nos. 110-95-8361X, 140-96-8052X, 110-99-8074X
DENIAL OF REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
Lillian R. Duzenski-Peterson (complainant) timely initiated a request
to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) to
reconsider the decision in Lillian R. Duzenski-Peterson v. Department of
Energy, EEOC Appeal No. 01A05560 (December 6, 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).
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. 01A05560 remains the Commission's final decision. There is no
further right of administrative appeal on the decision of the Commission
on these requests for reconsideration.<1>
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
____03-18-03______________
Date
1The record indicates that EEOC administrative hearings were held on
Complaints SR95(19) and SR95(51) in December 1996 and February 1997,
respectively. The Administrative Judge who presided over the hearings,
however, did not issue a decision. Subsequently, he retired from the
Commission. Consequently, the Administrative Judge who was assigned
to conduct a hearing on Complaint SR95 (12), complainant's third
complaint, in May 2000, issued a decision that addressed all three
complaints. Contrary to complainant's assertion that it was wrong for
the Administrative Judge to issue a decision on a case where she did not
preside over the hearing, we find no error warranting reconsideration.
We note in this regard that the AJ had the hearing transcripts concerning
Complaints SR95(19) and SR95(51) before her when she reached her decision
finding no discrimination. Consequently, we do not find that complainant
was prejudiced. Likewise, we note that complainant has not alleged
that the factual determinations of the AJ, based on her reading of the
hearing transcripts, were incorrect.