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

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionMay 22, 2000
01986430 (E.E.O.C. May. 22, 2000)

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.