05a00952
11-29-2000
Mattie J. Tippitt, Complainant, v. Craven H. Crowell, Jr., Chairman, Tennessee Valley Authority, Agency.
Mattie J. Tippitt v. Tennessee Valley Authority
05A00952
11-29-00
.
Mattie J. Tippitt,
Complainant,
v.
Craven H. Crowell, Jr.,
Chairman,
Tennessee Valley Authority,
Agency.
Request No. 05A00952
Appeal No. 01986430
Agency No. 1127-97056
DENIAL OF REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
The complainant initiated a request to the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (EEOC or Commission) to reconsider the decision in
Mattie J. Tippitt v. Craven H. Crowell, Jr., Chairman, Tennessee
Valley Authority, EEOC Appeal No. 01986430 (May 22, 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 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659 (1999)
(to be codified and hereinafter referred to as 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405(b)).
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 claim before us in the previous decision was whether the agency
discriminated against complainant on the bases of race (Black), sex
(female), age (54), and reprisal (prior EEO activity) when she was
denied training opportunities from September 1995 through September
30, 1996. The final agency decision (FAD) found no discrimination with
respect to this claim. Our previous decision, dated May 22, 2000,
affirmed that finding. In her Request to Reconsider (RTR), received
by the Commission on June 30, 2000, complainant avers that the agency
denied her training opportunities. She states that she wanted further
training so that she could qualify for open positions at the agency.
She explains that she continuously asked for a training position, a
computer course, a position as a facilitator at the Tennessee Valley
Authority (TVA) University, and that she offered to take a pay cut.
Complainant explains that these requests were not met by the agency.
She asserts further that her training records were never reviewed by
the TVA's EEO Office.<2> The agency opposed complainant's RTR on the
grounds that it failed to meet the criteria for reconsideration.
In order to merit the reconsideration of a prior Commission decision,
the requesting party must submit written argument or evidence which
tends to establish that at least one of the criteria of 29 C.F.R. �
1614.405(b) has been met. The Commission's scope of review on a request
for reconsideration is narrow. Lopez v. Department of the Air Force,
EEOC Request No. 05890749 (September 28, 1989). A reconsideration
request is not merely a form of a second appeal. Regensberg v. USPS,
EEOC Request No. 05900850 (September 7, 1990). After a careful review
of the record, the Commission finds that the agency's request does not
meet the regulatory criteria of 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405. Complainant did
not establish that the appellate decision involved a clearly erroneous
interpretation of material fact or law. Complainant merely reargued the
facts of her case on RTR. The Commission has previously held that such
an argument is improper in a request for reconsideration. See Bartlomain
v. USPS, EEOC Request No. 05910436 (October 10, 1991).
We find, further, that there is no reason for us to reconsider this
case on our own motion. On RTR, complainant has identified no employee
similarly situated who received more training than her. Further,
complainant has not demonstrated that the agency was obligated to provide
complainant with training to make her more marketable.
Therefore, the decision in EEOC Appeal No. 01986430 remains the
Commission's final decision. There is no further right of administrative
appeal on the decision of the Commission on this RTR.
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 ORDEPARTMENT
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
__11-29-00________________
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 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644 (1999), where applicable, in deciding the
present appeal. The regulations, as amended, may also be found at the
Commission's website at www.eeoc.gov.
2Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive for 29 C.F.R. Part 1614
(EEO MD-110), 5-25 - 26 (November 9, 1999) provides that:
If a complainant is dissatisfied with the processing of his/her pending
complaint, whether or not it alleges prohibited discrimination as a
basis for dissatisfaction, s/he should be referred to the agency official
responsible for the quality of complaints processing. Agency officials
should earnestly attempt to resolve dissatisfaction with the complaints
process as early and expeditiously as possible. The agency official
responsible for the quality of complaints processing must add a record of
the complainant's concerns and any actions the agency took to resolve the
concerns, to the complaint file maintained on the underlying complainant.
If no action was taken, the file must contain an explanation of the
agency's reason(s) for not taking any action.