01986430
05-22-2000
Mattie J. Tippitt, Complainant, v. Craven H. Crowell, Jr., Chairman, Tennessee Valley Authority, Agency.
Mattie J. Tippitt v. Tennessee Valley Authority
01986430
May 22, 2000
Mattie J. Tippitt, )
Complainant, )
)
v. ) Appeal No. 01986430
) Agency No. 1127-97056
Craven H. Crowell, Jr., )
Chairman, )
Tennessee Valley Authority, )
Agency. )
____________________________________)
DECISION
In accordance with 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659 (1999)(to be codified
at 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405), the complainant's appeal from the agency's
final decision in the above-entitled matter has been accepted by the
Commission.<1> The appeal concerns complainant's claim that the agency
discriminated against her on the bases of race, sex, age, and reprisal
when she was denied training opportunities from September 1995 through
September 30, 1996.<2> After a review of the record in its entirety,
including consideration of all statements submitted on appeal, it is
the decision of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to AFFIRM
the agency's final decision because the preponderance of the evidence
of record does not establish that discrimination occurred.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0300)
The Commission may, in its discretion, reconsider the decision in this
case if the complainant or the agency submits a written request containing
arguments or evidence which tend to establish 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.
Requests to reconsider, with supporting statement or brief, MUST BE FILED
WITH THE OFFICE OF FEDERAL OPERATIONS (OFO) WITHIN THIRTY (30) CALENDAR
DAYS of receipt of this decision or WITHIN TWENTY (20) CALENDAR DAYS OF
RECEIPT OF ANOTHER PARTY'S TIMELY REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION. See 64
Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659 (1999) (to be codified and hereinafter referred
to as 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405); Equal Employment Opportunity Management
Directive for 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 (EEO MD-110), 9-18 (November 9, 1999).
All requests and arguments must be submitted to the Director, Office of
Federal Operations, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, P.O. Box
19848, Washington, D.C. 20036. In the absence of a legible postmark, the
request to reconsider shall be deemed timely filed if it is received by
mail within five days of the expiration of the applicable filing period.
See 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,661 (1999) (to be codified and hereinafter
referred to as 29 C.F.R. � 1614.604). The request or opposition must
also include proof of service on the other party.
Failure to file within the time period will result in dismissal of your
request for reconsideration as untimely, unless extenuating circumstances
prevented the timely filing of the request. Any supporting documentation
must be submitted with your request for reconsideration. The Commission
will consider requests for reconsideration filed after the deadline only
in very limited circumstances. See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.604(c).
COMPLAINANTS' RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (S0400)
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. If you
file a request to reconsider and also file a civil action, filing a civil
action will terminate the administrative processing of your complaint.
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:
05-22-00
Date Carlton M. Hadden, Acting Director
Office of Federal Operations
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
1 On 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.
2 Complainant also alleged discrimination on the same bases when
she was reduced in force (RIFed) from her position as an Engineering
Associate-Welding, SE-5, at TVA's Watts Bar Nuclear Plant on September
30, 1996. The final agency decision (FAD) gave complainant the right to
appeal this issue to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), or to the
Federal District Court. It gave her the right to appeal the training
issue to the Commission. Complainant filed two appeals on August 20,
1998: one with the MSPB erroneously relating to her denial of training
claim, and one with the Commission that did not specify what issue she
was appealing to it. Despite the fact that complainant erroneously
appealed the training issue rather than the RIF action to it, the MSPB
issued a final decision (MSPB No. AT0351981064I1), dated May 14, 1996,
finding that the agency had not engaged in discrimination with respect to
the RIF action. In Tippitt v. Tennessee Valley Authority, EEOC Appeal
No. 03990103 (December 17, 1999), the Commission concurred with the
final decision of the MSPB finding no discrimination with respect to the
RIF action. Since the RIF issue has already been decided by the MSPB,
and concurred with by the Commission, this decision will only address
the denial of training issue because complainant was given the right to
appeal the training issue directly to the Commission.