05A10494
06-19-2001
Rosalinda M. Pasquil, Complainant, v. Anthony J. Principi, Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs, Agency.
Rosalinda M. Pasquil v. Department of Veterans Affairs
05A10494
June 19, 2001
.
Rosalinda M. Pasquil,
Complainant,
v.
Anthony J. Principi,
Secretary,
Department of Veterans Affairs,
Agency.
Request No. 05A10494
Appeal No. 01A04775
Agency No. 97-1552
Hearing No. 340-99-3993X
DENIAL OF REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
The complainant initiated a request to the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (EEOC or Commission) to reconsider the decision in Rosalinda
M. Pasquil v. Department of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Appeal No. 01A04775
(February 27, 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).
In her formal complaint, complainant alleged that she was discriminated
against on the basis of reprisal for prior EEO activity when the agency
subjected her to a hostile work environment from November 13, 1996,
to April 25, 1997, while employed as a Staff Nurse in the Geriatric
Psychiatry Unit at the West Los Angeles Medical Center. The appellate
decision affirmed an Administrative Judge's post hearing finding of
no discrimination. In her request for reconsideration, complainant has
not presented any evidence or argument that was not previously considered
by the Commission when we affirmed the agency's final decision.
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), and it
is the decision of the Commission to deny the request. We find that
complainant failed to demonstrate that the appellate decision involved
a clearly erroneous interpretation of material fact or law or that
the appellate decision will have a substantial impact on the policies,
practices, or operations of the agency. We note that a complainant can
establish a prima facie case of reprisal discrimination by presenting
facts that, if unexplained, reasonably give rise to an inference
of discrimination. Shapiro v. Social Security Administration, EEOC
Request No. 05960403 (Dec. 6, 1996) (citing McDonnell Douglas v. Green,
411 U.S. 792 (1973) at 802). Specifically, in a reprisal claim,
and in accordance with the burdens set forth in McDonnell Douglas
and Hochstadt v. Worcester Foundation for Experimental Biology, 425
F. Supp. 318, 324 (D. Mass.), aff'd, 545 F.2d 222 (1st Cir. 1976), and
Coffman v. Department of Veteran Affairs, EEOC Request No. 05960473
(November 20, 1997), a complainant may establish a prima facie case
of reprisal by showing that: (1) she engaged in a protected activity;
(2) the agency was aware of her protected activity; (3) subsequently,
she was subjected to adverse treatment<1> by the agency; and (4) a nexus
exists between the protected activity and the adverse action. Whitmire
v. Department of the Air Force, EEOC Appeal No. 01A00340 (September 25,
2000). Upon review, we agree that complainant failed to establish the
necessary elements of a prima facie case of reprisal, namely that her
supervisor was aware of her prior EEO activity. Complainant also failed
to establish a causal connection between the prior EEO activity and the
challenged treatment which occurred more than a year after complainant's
prior EEO activity. Therefore, the decision in EEOC Appeal No. 01A04775
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
June 19, 2001
__________________
Date
1The Commission interprets the statutory retaliation clauses "to prohibit
any adverse treatment that is based on a retaliatory motive and is
reasonably likely to deter the charging party or others from engaging
in protected activity." EEOC Compliance Manual, Section 8 (Retaliation)
at 8-13 - 8-14 (May 20, 1998).