05a10580
01-30-2002
Ramona Campbell, Complainant, v. Gordon R. England, Secretary, Department of the Navy, Agency.
Ramona Campbell v. Department of the Navy
05A10580
January 30, 2002
.
Ramona Campbell,
Complainant,
v.
Gordon R. England,
Secretary,
Department of the Navy,
Agency.
Request No. 05A10580
Appeal No. 01981997
Agency No. 9500146004
Hearing No. 140-95-8155x
DENIAL OF REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
Ramona Campbell (complainant) initiated a request to the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) to reconsider the decision
in Ramona Campbell v. Department of the Navy, EEOC Appeal No. 01981997
(March 6, 2001). 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 the 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 (Caucasian), sex (female), and disability (major depression
and anxiety), and retaliated against for prior EEO activity when
her position of Supervisory Personnel Management Specialist was not
upgraded to the GS-13 level commensurate with other department heads in
her office. The previous decision affirmed the agency's adoption of an
EEOC Administrative Judge's finding of no discrimination after a hearing.
The decision concluded that the individuals to whom complainant compared
herself in arguing that her position should be upgraded, performed
different duties than she and supervised higher level employees.
The decision noted that the agency's decision to conduct a second audit
after the first audit indicated that a GS-13 might be appropriate was
suspect, but agreed with the AJ that complainant failed to establish that
the decision to conduct the second audit was motivated by discriminatory
animus, rather than a fear that upgrading complainant's position would
require the agency to upgrade the positions of Personnel Management
Specialists throughout the agency, none of whom were GS-13s.
In her request for reconsideration, complainant argues that the
appellate decision involved an erroneous interpretation of material fact.
Specifically, she contends that the agency's argument that upgrading her
position would require an upgrade of other individuals is not recognized
by the Office of Personnel Management as a plausible reason for denying
an upgrade. She also argues that the results of the second audit did
not expel the discriminatory circumstances leading the agency to conduct
the audit.
We note that complainant raised essentially the same arguments on appeal.
The agency's argument that upgrading complainant's position would require
an upgrade of numerous other agency employees was not accepted as a
non-discriminatory explanation for not upgrading her, but rather as an
explanation for conducting a second desk audit. Furthermore, as noted
in the previous decision, complainant's named comparative employees
performed different duties and supervised higher level employees than
she. Accordingly, the fact that they were GS-13s does not suggest that
complainant's GS-12 grade was maintained due to discrimination.
After a careful review of the record, we find that complainant failed
to establish that the appellate decision involved a clearly erroneous
interpretation of fact or law, or that it will have a substantial impact
on the policies, practices, or operations of the agency. The decision
in EEOC Appeal No. 01981997 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
January 30, 2002
Date