Mattie J. Tippitt, Complainant,v.Craven H. Crowell, Jr., Chairman, Tennessee Valley Authority, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionNov 29, 2000
05a00952 (E.E.O.C. Nov. 29, 2000)

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.