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.