05A30134
03-10-2003
Maude D. Mills, Complainant, v. Thomas E. White, Secretary, Department of the Army, Agency.
Maude D. Mills v. Department of the Army
05A30134
March 10, 2003
.
Maude D. Mills,
Complainant,
v.
Thomas E. White,
Secretary,
Department of the Army,
Agency.
Request No. 05A30134
Appeal No. 01A13865
Agency No. BRIEFO9609G0430
Hearing No. 320-98-8112X
DENIAL OF REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
Maude D. Mills (complainant) timely initiated a request to the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) to reconsider
the decision in Maude D. Mills v. Department of the Army, EEOC Appeal
No. 01A13865 (September 25, 2002). 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).
After a review of 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).
Complainant alleged that she was discriminated against on the bases
of race (African-American), color (black) and age (date of birth June
16, 1934), and subjected to retaliation for prior EEO activity when:
(1) from December 1994 through October 1996, she was subjected to
harassment regarding her job performance, including being asked
to take early retirement; and (2) in October 1996, she received an
undeservedly low performance appraisal. The previous decision affirmed
the agency's implementation of an EEOC Administrative Judge's finding
of no discrimination.
In her request for reconsideration, complainant reiterates arguments
made on appeal. She contends that the AJ's finding of no retaliation
was erroneous because it relied on the fact that she was subjected to
harassment and vindictive actions both before and after her EEO activity.
Complainant argues that each adverse action to which she was subjected
should be analyzed as a �freeze frame� in time and that simply because
she was subjected to adverse actions prior to her EEO activity does not
mean that she should be left with no remedy for actions that took place
after that activity.
This argument misinterprets the reasoning behind the finding of no
retaliation. The prior decision concluded that complainant failed
to establish that the agency's actions were related to or based
on her prior protected EEO activity. The record establishes that
complainant's supervisors began voicing concerns about her typing
skills and criticizing complainant's performance before she engaged
in EEO activity. This indicates that when they took the same types of
adverse action after her EEO activity, they were motivated by their belief
in the inferiority of her typing skills, and not by her EEO activity.
Complainant failed to prove that, more likely than not, it was her EEO
activity, rather than management's perception of her work performance,
that motivated the actions of which she complained.
Accordingly, as complainant failed to demonstrate that the appellate
decision involved a clearly erroneous interpretation of material fact
or law or will have a substantial impact on the policies, practices,
or operations of the agency, it is the decision of the Commission
to deny the request. The decision in EEOC Appeal No. 01A13865
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.
COMPLAINANT'S RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (P0900)
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
March 10, 2003
Date