05980157
02-06-2001
Patricia E. Burt, Complainant, v. Richard J. Danzig, Secretary, Department of the Navy, Agency.
Patricia E. Burt v. Department of the Navy
05980157
February 6, 2001
.
Patricia E. Burt,
Complainant,
v.
Richard J. Danzig,
Secretary,
Department of the Navy,
Agency.
Request No. 05980157
Appeal No. 01956274
Agency No. 91-00161-006
Hearing No. 120-95-5111X
DENIAL OF REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
The complainant initiated a request to the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (EEOC or Commission) to reconsider the decision in Patricia
E. Burt v. Department of the Navy, EEOC Appeal No. 01956274 (October
29, 1997).<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 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405(b).
In the request for reconsideration, complainant's attorney contends
that the student evaluations which complainant received during her
tenure were negative because the students were improperly influenced by
sex stereotyping and bias. Consequently, the request argues that the
agency could not lawfully base the denial of tenure on these negative
student evaluations. She asserts that the proper standard of review is
the guidance set forth in Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228,
251 (1989), rather than the standard set forth in McDonnell Douglas
Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). The request further contends that
the Commission relied upon an error of material fact when it stated in
its decision that �classroom observations of faculty members of the
tenure and promotion committee were consistent with the poor student
evaluations,� arguing that the committee members in fact evaluated
the complainant �in an overwhelmingly positive manner� which �directly
contradicted the student evaluations.� The request also asserts that the
Commission erroneously concluded that a �lack of teaching effectiveness
. . . was the most important area of concern in determining whether an
instructor should be granted tenure.�
In its response to the request, the agency argues that the prior decision
properly analyzed this matter and notes that the personal classroom
observations of complainant's teaching by members of the promotion and
tenure committee, who voted unanimously not to give complainant tenure,
were consistent with the negative student evaluations. The agency contends
that the unfavorable student ratings indicated that complainant failed
to achieve a rapport with her students but instead antagonized them,
which negatively impacted upon her teaching effectiveness.
After a review of the 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 decision in EEOC Appeal
No. 01956274 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
February 6, 2001
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 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 in deciding the
present appeal. The regulations, as amended, may also be found at the
Commission's website at www.eeoc.gov.