M. Louisa Beld, Appellant,v.Bruce Babbitt, Secretary, Department of the Interior, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionNov 4, 1999
05980004x (E.E.O.C. Nov. 4, 1999)

05980004x

11-04-1999

M. Louisa Beld, Appellant, v. Bruce Babbitt, Secretary, Department of the Interior, Agency.


M. Louisa Beld, )

Appellant, )

) Request No. 05980004

v. ) Appeal No. 01970269

) Agency No. WBR-96-001

Bruce Babbitt, )

Secretary, )

Department of the Interior, )

Agency. )

)

DENIAL OF REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

On April 4, 1998, M. Louisa Beld (appellant) timely initiated a request

to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the Commission) to

reconsider the decision in Beld v. Department of the Interior, EEOC

Appeal No. 01970269 (August 22, 1997). EEOC regulations provide that the

Commissioners may, in their discretion, reconsider any previous Commission

decision. 29 C.F.R. �1614.407(a). The party requesting reconsideration

must submit written argument or evidence which tends to establish one

or more of the following three criteria: new and material evidence is

available that was not readily available when the previous decision

was issued, 29 C.F.R. �1614.407(c)(1); the previous decision involved

an erroneous interpretation of law, regulation, or material fact, or a

misapplication of established policy, 29 C.F.R. �1614.407(c)(2); or the

decision is of such exceptional nature as to have substantial precedential

implications, 29 C.F.R. �1614.407(c)(3). Appellant's request is denied.

Appellant filed a formal complaint on October 4, 1995. The agency

issued its final agency decision (FAD), dismissing a portion of

appellant's complaint pursuant to 29 C.F.R. �1614.107(a), finding that

those allegations failed to state a claim. Upon appeal, the previous

decision affirmed the agency's dismissal of appellant's complaint.

In her complaint, appellant alleged discrimination on the basis of sex

(female) and reprisal when: (1) from February 1, 1995 through June 30,

1995, appellant's supervisor performed her midterm reviews in an improper

and disparate manner; (2) from February 1, 1995 through June 30, 1995,

appellant's supervisor gave her ratings of �Fully Successful� on her

appraisals; (3) during the 1994 performance rating period, appellant's

supervisor overlapped her 1994 and 1995 appraisal periods; and (4) on

August 21, 1995, appellant's supervisor told her that she was no longer

with the �high grades� like other employees. In its FAD, the agency

found that allegations (1) and (4) failed to state a claim. The FAD also

dismissed allegation (3) finding that there was no overlap. The agency

found that appellant received her 1994 performance rating on January 31,

1995, for the appraisal period from July 1, 1993 through September 30,

1994 (extended to December 14, 1994) and her 1995 performance rating

on April 6, 1995 for the period from February 1, 1995 through June

30, 1995. The previous decision affirmed the agency's action citing 29

C.F.R. �1614.107(a).

Appellant's request for reconsideration involves the Commission's

regulations that require an agency to cancel a complaint that

fails to state a claim where an employee is not aggrieved. See 29

C.F.R. �1614.107(a). The Commission's federal sector case precedent has

long defined an "aggrieved employee" as one who suffers a present harm

or loss with respect to a term, condition, or privilege of employment

for which there is a remedy. Diaz v. Department of the Air Force,

EEOC Request No. 05931049 (April 21, 1994).

As to allegations (1), (3), and (4), we find that appellant challenges

actions which have not resulted in a harm or loss with respect to a term,

condition, or privilege of employment. She is not aggrieved and therefore

fails to state a claim.

After a review of appellant's request for reconsideration, the previous

decision, and the entire record, the Commission finds that appellant's

request does not meet the criteria of 29 C.F.R. �1614.407(c), and it is

the decision of the Commission to deny appellant's request. The decision

of the Commission in Appeal No. 01970269 remains the Commission's final

decision. There is no further right of administrative appeal from a

decision of the Commission on a request for reconsideration.

RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (P0993)

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.

It is the position of the Commission that 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.

You should be aware, however, that courts in some jurisdictions have

interpreted the Civil Rights Act of 1991 in a manner suggesting that

a civil action must be filed WITHIN THIRTY (30) CALENDAR DAYS from the

date that you receive this decision. To ensure that your civil action

is considered timely, you are advised to file it WITHIN THIRTY (30)

CALENDAR DAYS from the date that you receive this decision or to consult

an attorney concerning the applicable time period in the jurisdiction

in which your action would be filed. 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 (Z1092)

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:

Nov. 4, 1999

DATE Frances M. Hart

Executive Officer

Executive Secretariat