0520140152
05-21-2014
Complainant, v. Eric K. Shinseki, Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs, Agency.
Complainant,
v.
Eric K. Shinseki,
Secretary,
Department of Veterans Affairs,
Agency.
Request No. 0520140152
Appeal No. 0120131911
Agency No. 200306572012101129
DENIAL
Complainant timely requested reconsideration of the decision in EEOC Appeal No. 0120131911 (December 13, 2013). EEOC Regulations provide that the Commission may, in its discretion, grant a request to 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(c). For the following reasons, Complainant's request for reconsideration is denied.
BACKGROUND
In the appellate decision, Complainant alleged that that the Agency discriminated against her on the basis of reprisal for prior protected EEO activity under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act when: (1) on November 29, 2011, management issued her a notice of a management-directed detail to Quality Management Services, effective December 5, 2011; and (2) on May 18, 2012, management discharged her from her RN position. The FAD found that Complainant failed to demonstrate that she was subjected to discrimination. The record showed that Complainant made two medication errors and both errors were reported by Complainant to her supervisor. Complainant did not follow VA policy or procedure for the administration of medications on January 18, 2010, and November 7, 2011. She conceded that she made another medication error on February 18, 2010, and was reprimand for that infraction.
The Agency concluded that its responsible management officials articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for the disputed actions. Specifically, Complainant was detailed away from patient care pending a misconduct investigation and she was discharged based on its findings that she failed to meet nursing care standards.
The Agency found that Complainant did not offer any persuasive evidence that would show that the stated reasons were untrue or were a pretext for retaliatory animus. Moreover, Complainant did not deny that she committed the errors or offer any evidence that showed that the stated reasons were pretext for reprisal.
The Commission affirmed the finding of no discrimination. We found that Complainant failed to meet her burden to show pretext and a preponderance of the evidence did not establish that reprisal more likely than not played a role in the Agency's actions.
REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION CONTENTIONS
In her request for reconsideration, Complainant, among other things, takes responsibility for her actions but again questions the severity of her punishment. She notes that after 27 years of employment she was terminated for two medication errors. Complainant also questions the type of information that was sent to the State Board of Nursing. She maintains that she has not been able to obtain copies of the information provided from the Agency to the Board.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
After reviewing 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(c), and it is the decision of the Commission to deny the request. We find that Complainant has failed to show 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 find that Complainant's arguments regarding the severity of the action taken against her by the Agency was fully addressed in the appellate decision and will not be revisited. Accordingly, we find the decision in EEOC Appeal No. 0120131911 remains the Commission's decision. There is no further right of administrative appeal on the decision of the Commission on this request.
COMPLAINANT'S RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (P0610)
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 (Z0610)
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 from the Court that the Court appoint an attorney to represent you and that the Court also 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 with the Court 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
___5/21/14_______________
Date
2
0520140152
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
2
0520140152