Nedda K. Walkup, Appellant,v.A. Tanoue, Chairman, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionNov 4, 1999
05980806 (E.E.O.C. Nov. 4, 1999)

05980806

11-04-1999

Nedda K. Walkup, Appellant, v. A. Tanoue, Chairman, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Agency.


Nedda K. Walkup, )

Appellant, )

) Request No. 05980806

v. ) Appeal No. 01972496

) Agency No. FDIC 96-39 Donna

A. Tanoue, )

Chairman, )

Federal Deposit Insurance )

Corporation, )

Agency. )

)

DENIAL OF REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

On May 8, 1998, Nedda K. Walkup (the appellant) timely initiated a

request to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the Commission)

to reconsider the decision in Nedda K. Walkup. v. Andrew C. Hove, Acting

Chairman, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, EEOC Appeal No. 01972496

(April 2, 1998). EEOC regulations provide that the Commissioners

may, in their discretion, reconsider any previous Commission decision.

29 C.F.R. �1614.407(a). The party requesting reconsideration must submit

written argument or evidence which tends to establish one or more of

the following three criteria: new and material evidence is available

that was not readily available when the previous decision was issued,

29 C.F.R. �1614.407(c)(1); the previous decision involved an erroneous

interpretation of law or regulation, or material fact, or a misapplication

of established policy, 29 C.F.R. �1614.407(c)(2); and the decision is of

such exceptional nature as to have substantial precedential implications,

29 C.F.R. �1614.407(c)(3).

Appellant, a supervisor in the Call Reports Analysis Unit, contacted an

EEO Counselor on February 7, 1996, alleging discrimination on the bases

of sex (female) and age (DOB: 12-2-42). Appellant alleged that several

discriminatory incidents occurred between June 1995, and February 1996.

The agency accepted those occurring within forty five days of her EEO

counselor contact and dismissed those occurring prior to that time

as untimely.<1>

In its final decision, the agency noted that the EEO Counselor stated in

her affidavit that appellant told her that she suspected discrimination

in September 1995, but hesitated to file a complaint because she hoped to

resolve the issue through either the grievance process or the Office of

the Special Counsel. The agency also analyzed appellant's allegations

as a continuing violation, but found that the incidents complained of

were separate, discrete events of a permanent nature, such that appellant

should have suspected discrimination at that time.

Appellant appealed and the Commission affirmed the agency's decision.

Appellant now requests reconsideration arguing that she made numerous

attempts to notify management of her work environment. Nothing in the

record however, substantiates appellant's claim. Appellant provides

neither dates nor names of people she contacted or attempted to contact.

After a review of the appellant's request to reconsider, the previous

decision, and the entire record, the Commission finds that the request

fails to meet the criteria of 29 C.F.R. �1614.407(c), and it is the

decision of the Commission to deny the request. The decision in EEOC

Appeal No. 01972496 (April 2, 1998) 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.

RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (P0993)

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. It

is the position of the Commission that 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. You should

be aware, however, that courts in some jurisdictions have interpreted

the Civil Rights Act of 1991 in a manner suggesting that a civil action

must be filed WITHIN THIRTY (30) CALENDAR DAYS from the date that you

receive this decision. To ensure that your civil action is considered

timely, you are advised to file it WITHIN THIRTY (30) CALENDAR DAYS

from the date that you receive this decision or to consult an attorney

concerning the applicable time period in the jurisdiction in which your

action would be filed. 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 (Z1092)

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:

November 4, 1999

Date Frances M. Hart

Executive Officer

Executive Secretariat1 The incidents

dismissed were as follows: in June

1995, appellant's supervisor (the

Supervisor) instructed her to give

an employee a fully satisfactory

performance appraisal when appellant

believed the employee should have

a lower rating; in September 1995,

appellant's memorandum suggesting

changes to office procedures was

ignored; in September 1995, the

Supervisor had a co-worker assist

in preparing appellant's annual

performance appraisal; in November

1995, the Supervisor rated appellant's

supervisory skills negatively on

her annual performance appraisal;

on December 12, 1995, the Supervisor

instructed appellant to rescind

an e-mail she sent to her staff

regarding policy; on December 13,

1995, the Supervisor told appellant

she could not have mail routed to her

after it was opened by support staff.