05a10025
02-09-2001
Elois K. Fulton, Complainant, v. Kenneth S. Apfel, Commissioner, Social Security Administration, Agency.
Elois K. Fulton v. Social Security Administration
05A10025
February 9, 2001
.
Elois K. Fulton,
Complainant,
v.
Kenneth S. Apfel,
Commissioner,
Social Security Administration,
Agency.
Request No. 05A10025
Appeal No. 01A03357
Agency No. 980675SSA
Hearing No. 170-99-8468X
DENIAL OF REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
The complainant initiated a request to the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (EEOC or Commission) to reconsider the decision in Elois
K. Fulton v. Social Security Administration, EEOC Appeal No. 01A03357
(August 29, 2000).<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 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. The decision in
EEOC Appeal No. 01A03357 remains the Commission's final decision.<2>
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
February 9, 2001
__________________
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 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 in deciding the
present appeal. The regulations, as amended, may also be found at the
Commission's website at www.eeoc.gov.
2The Commission notes that the administrative judge's analysis that
the agency did not retaliate against complainant because she did not
suffer an adverse action is inconsistent with Commission case law,
which prohibits any adverse treatment that is based on a retaliatory
motive and is reasonably likely to deter a complainant from engaging in
protected activity. The record, however, revealed that there was no
causal connection between the actions at issue here, which allegedly
occurred in 1998, and complainant's prior EEO activity, all of which
ended by January 1995.