01a00902
04-21-2000
Tonya R. Boone, Complainant, v. Janet Reno, Attorney General, Department of Justice, Agency.
Tonya R. Boone, )
Complainant, )
) Appeal No. 01A00902
v. ) Agency No. F-98-5174
) Hearing No. 100-99-7176X
Janet Reno, )
Attorney General, )
Department of Justice, )
Agency. )
____________________________________)
DECISION
Pursuant to 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659 (1999) (to be codified at 29
C.F.R. � 1614.405), the Commission accepts the complainant's appeal
from the agency's final decision in the above-entitled matter.<1> After
a review of the record in its entirety, it is the decision of the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission to AFFIRM the agency's final decision
that adopted the Administrative Judge's (AJ) recommended decision,
which was issued without a hearing.<2> On appeal, the complainant does
not argue she was improperly denied a hearing. A preponderance of the
evidence supports the AJ's finding of no discrimination.<3>
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0300)
The Commission may, in its discretion, reconsider the decision in this
case if the complainant or the agency submits a written request containing
arguments or evidence which tend to establish 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.
Requests to reconsider, with supporting statement or brief, MUST BE FILED
WITH THE OFFICE OF FEDERAL OPERATIONS (OFO) WITHIN THIRTY (30) CALENDAR
DAYS of receipt of this decision or WITHIN TWENTY (20) CALENDAR DAYS OF
RECEIPT OF ANOTHER PARTY'S TIMELY REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION. See 64
Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659 (1999) (to be codified and hereinafter referred
to as 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405); Equal Employment Opportunity Management
Directive for 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 (EEO MD-110), 9-18 (November 9, 1999).
All requests and arguments must be submitted to the Director, Office of
Federal Operations, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, P.O. Box
19848, Washington, D.C. 20036. In the absence of a legible postmark, the
request to reconsider shall be deemed timely filed if it is received by
mail within five days of the expiration of the applicable filing period.
See 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,661 (1999) (to be codified and hereinafter
referred to as 29 C.F.R. � 1614.604). The request or opposition must
also include proof of service on the other party.
Failure to file within the time period will result in dismissal of your
request for reconsideration as untimely, unless extenuating circumstances
prevented the timely filing of the request. Any supporting documentation
must be submitted with your request for reconsideration. The Commission
will consider requests for reconsideration filed after the deadline only
in very limited circumstances. See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.604(c).
COMPLAINANTS' RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (S0400)
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. If you
file a request to reconsider and also file a civil action, filing a civil
action will terminate the administrative processing of your complaint.
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:
April 21, 2000
Date
Carlton
M.
Hadden,
Acting
Director
Office of Federal Operations
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
For timeliness purposes, the Commission will presume that this decision
was received within five (5) calendar days after it was mailed. I certify
that this decision was mailed to complainant, complainant's representative
(if applicable), and the agency on:
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 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.
2The complainant resigned in lieu of being terminated in February 1998.
The Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) has jurisdiction over mixed
case complaint allegations which allege discrimination based, among
other things, on race with regard to a constructive discharge if the
MSPB finds a separation was a constructive discharge (5 C.F.R. � 1201.3).
Since the complainant's complaint has been pending in the EEO process for
over two years and has been ruled on by an EEOC AJ, the Commission will
assume jurisdiction over his case. The complaint is firmly enmeshed
in the EEO forum, and it would better serve the interests of judicial
economy to address his complaint at this time rather than remand it
for consideration to the MSPB process. See Burton v. Department of
Agriculture, EEOC Appeal No. 01932449 (October 28, 1994).
3In addition to finding no discrimination based on the evidence, AJ
ruled that by failing to respond to the agency's request for admissions,
she was deemed to have admitted no discrimination. The final agency
decision disagreed with this ruling. It reasoned that EEO administrative
procedures are informal. But it adopted the AJ's recommended decision
of no discrimination. We need not rule on the admission matter.