05980697
12-15-2000
Margaret K. Godwin, Complainant, v. William S. Cohen, Secretary, Department of Defense, (Defense Logistics Agency), Agency.
Margaret K. Godwin v. Defense Logistics Agency
05980697
December 15, 2000
.
Margaret K. Godwin,
Complainant,
v.
William S. Cohen,
Secretary,
Department of Defense,
(Defense Logistics Agency),
Agency.
Request No. 05980697
Appeal No. 01974633
Agency No. DT-97-45
DENIAL OF REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
The complainant filed a request with this Commission to reconsider the
decision in Margaret K. Godwin v. Defense Logistics Agency, EEOC Appeal
No. 01974633 (March 30, 1998).<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).
For the reasons set forth herein, complainant's request is DENIED.
In her complaint, filed on April 14, 1997, complainant claimed that the
agency retaliated against her when it removed critical documents from
her official personnel file so that they could not be used as evidence
in EEO and Merits System Protect Board cases she had pending against the
agency. In its April 17, 1997 final decision, the agency dismissed the
complaint because she had not discussed the claim with an EEO Counselor
prior to filing the complaint. In her appeal, complainant claims that
her facility (Tinker Air Force Base) did not have an EEO Counselor, and
that she was unable to obtain EEO counseling at another office, despite
multiple attempts to do so. Specifically, complainant indicated that
she first called the EEO office at a Department of the Army facility, but
was told that she had to contact a Defense Logistics Agency EEO office.
Complainant indicated that she then called the �EEO office in Oklahoma
City, OK� for five days, leaving messages, but receiving no response.
Complainant stated that she thereafter contacted the agency's EEO
headquarters office, and received a return call within three days.
However, complainant notes that at that point she had already obtained
a copy of the formal complaint form, and had sent it to the EEO office
in Stockton, CA. Complainant indicated that she believed that the EEO
manager at the Stockton office would assign an EEO Counselor once she
received the complaint form, but that the EEO manager instead dismissed
the complaint.
The previous decision found that complainant failed to contact and
discuss her claim with an EEO Counselor prior to filing the instant
complaint. The Commission noted that complainant failed to submit any
evidence to corroborate her account of EEO Counselor contact attempts.
The Commission also noted that complainant was familiar with EEO rules
and regulations, because of her prior EEO complaint history, and that she
provided inadequate justification for her failure to properly contact an
EEO Counselor regarding the instant complaint. The Commission affirmed
the agency's dismissal of the complaint for failure to contact an EEO
Counselor.
In her request for reconsideration, complainant states that her account
of EEO Counselor contact attempts is accurate. She submits a signed
statement from the agency employee she contacted immediately prior to
receiving a return call from the EEO headquarters office. Complainant
contends that the named employee, whom she identifies as an employee at
the agency facility at Tinker Air Force Base, discussed her concerns with
her, and provided her with a copy of the complaint form with instructions
to send it to the Stockton EEO office. The employee's signed but undated
statement indicates that the described contact was made on April 7, 1997,
and that the claim in the instant complaint was discussed. The statement
also indicates that complainant requested the complaint form, which
was faxed to her. However, there is no indication that complainant
was instructed to send the completed complaint form to the Stockton EEO
office, as complainant has asserted. Moreover, the statement is devoid
of any information as to the position this employee holds at the agency,
or whether she is an EEO Counselor.
The Commission determines that the employee statement submitted by
complainant in her request for reconsideration carries very little
probative value. The party who signed the statement is not adequately
described. Moreover, the employee statement fails to fully confirm
complainant's account of her EEO contact attempts, and does not confirm
that complainant received instructions to send the complaint form to the
Stockton EEO office to obtain EEO counseling. Therefore, we determine
that it fails to satisfy the criteria for reconsideration. It is the
decision of the Commission to deny this request.
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. 01974633 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.
COMPLAINANTS' RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (P0400)
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
December 15, 2000
__________________
Date
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
For timeliness purposes, the Commission will presume that this decision
was received within five (5) calendar days after it was mailed. I certify
that this decision was mailed to complainant, complainant's representative
(if applicable), and the agency on:
__________________
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.