05980120
03-17-2000
Tina Womack, Complainant, v. Bruce Babbitt, Secretary, Department of the Interior, Agency.
Tina Womack v. Department of the Interior
05980120
March 17, 2000
Tina Womack, )
Complainant, ) Request No. 05980120
) Appeal No. 01961455
v. ) Agency No. TNP-94-009
) Hearing No. 370-95-X2387
Bruce Babbitt, )
Secretary, )
Department of the Interior, )
Agency. )
____________________________________)
DENYING REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
The complainant initiated a request to the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission ( EEOC or Commission) to reconsider the decision in Tina
Womack v. Interior, EEOC Appeal No. 01961455 (October 9, 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 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,654 (1999)
(to be codified and hereinafter referred to as 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), and it
is the decision of the Commission to deny the request.<2> The decision
in Tina Womack v. Interior, EEOC Appeal No. 01961455 (October 9, 1997)
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 (P1199)
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:
3/17/00
Date Carlton M. Hadden, Acting Director
Office of Federal Operations
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 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644 (1999), where applicable, in deciding the
present appeal. The regulations, as amended, may also be found at the
Commission's website at WWW.EEOC.GOV.
2Complainant has presented allegedly "new" evidence in her request to
reconsider which shows that her application should have been processed
under the Outstanding Scholar Program, which allows additional points for
outstanding academic achievement in college. Complainant alleges that if
she was given the proper points in accordance with the Outstanding Scholar
Program she would have qualified for the position at issue. We note that
our regulations no longer permit "new and material evidence" to form
the basis for reconsideration. See 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,654 (1999)
(to be codified and hereinafter referred to as 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405(b)).
Nevertheless, even if we were to consider complainant's "new evidence,"
along with the entire record, we would find that the evidence remains
insufficient to prove pretext or discriminatory animus.