Lisea Merrick, Complainant,v.Janet Reno, Attorney General, Department of Justice, (Drug Enforcement Agency), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionNov 17, 2000
05a00695 (E.E.O.C. Nov. 17, 2000)

05a00695

11-17-2000

Lisea Merrick, Complainant, v. Janet Reno, Attorney General, Department of Justice, (Drug Enforcement Agency), Agency.


Lisea Merrick v. Department of Justice (DEA)

05A00695

November 17, 2000

.

Lisea Merrick,

Complainant,

v.

Janet Reno,

Attorney General,

Department of Justice,

(Drug Enforcement Agency),

Agency.

Request No. 05A00695

Appeal No. 01981691

Agency No. D-96-3409

Hearing No. 100-97-3409

DENIAL OF REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

The complainant initiated a request to the Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission (EEOC or Commission) to reconsider the decision in Lisea

Merrick v. Department of Justice (DEA), EEOC Appeal No. 01981691 (March

31, 2000).<1> 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 original complaint, complainant alleged that she was

discriminated on the bases of race (Black) and sex (female) when

she was not selected for a Special Agent position with the agency.

In her request for reconsideration, complainant contends that she met

the minimum qualifications for the Special Agent position, as set forth

in the advertisement for the position. Further, complainant contends

that the advertisement for the Special Agent position made no reference

to a uniform point scoring system for evaluating applicants, that the

scoring system was not uniform and that the Commission's decision did

not address complainant's three years as a Corrections Officer, which

would have qualified her for an interview.

We note, however, that the advertisement for the Special Agent position

as provided by complainant lists the minimum qualifications necessary

for consideration. While complainant possessed college and Masters

Degrees and this allowed her to meet the minimum qualifications for the

Special Agent position, it did not guarantee her an interview prior to

having all of her qualifications considered with the other applicants.

In addition, while complainant states that she was not notified of the

agency's scoring system of evaluating applicants, we agree with the agency

that it was not required to articulate the method of determining the

selectees in its position advertisement. The record indicates that the

Special Agent applicants were scored under a uniform system under which

each candidate received a specific amount of points for each category.

Special Agent candidates did not receive interviews unless they scored at

least fifty-five points, and complainant scored forty-five points in the

initial stage of the application process. See Complaint File at Tab F4

and F13a. As stated in the Commission's prior decision, �complainant

received no points for her experience as a correctional officer, in

law enforcement or in the military, based on the agency's criteria for

scoring the applications. The agency's articulated scoring system gave

credit for active military duty experience if it exceeded one year, and

credit for law enforcement experience if it involved at least one year

of work as a sworn uniformed police officer.� EEOC Decision at 2-3. As

complainant did not have the requisite experience in these categories,<2>

she received no points despite her claim that she should have received

points for her work as a corrections officer, and this was noted in the

Commission's previous decision. EEOC Decision at 3.

As to complainant's contention that the agency's system for evaluating

Special Agent applicants was not uniform, we note that the record reflects

that complainant's initial application was reviewed by several levels of

management and there was no disagreement with her rating. In addition,

we note that the agency official who rescored complainant's application

and stated that she would have given her ten additional points did so

with additional information which complainant could have provided with

her initial application but failed to submit. We also note that her

agency official similarly did not give complainant any points for her

military or law enforcement experience. Complaint File, Tab F7 at 2.

After a review of the 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. 01981691 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

November 17, 2000

__________________

Date

1On November 9, 1999, revised regulations governing the EEOC's federal

sector complaint process went into effect. These regulations apply

to all federal sector EEO complaints pending at any stage in the

administrative process. Consequently, the Commission will apply

the revised regulations found at 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 in deciding the

present appeal. The regulations, as amended, may also be found at the

Commission's website at www.eeoc.gov.

2 The record reflects that complainant worked for less than one year as

a police officer and worked as a correctional officer from April to June

of 1992. Complaint File, Tab F9.