05990145
04-15-2002
Bettie J. Conley, Complainant, v. Gordon R. England, Secretary, Department of the Navy, Agency.
Bettie J. Conley v. Department of the Navy
05990145
4/15/02
.
Bettie J. Conley,
Complainant,
v.
Gordon R. England,
Secretary,
Department of the Navy,
Agency.
Request No. 05990145
Appeal No. 01963818
Agency No. DON-94-49941-004
DENIAL OF REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
Bettie J. Conley (complainant) timely initiated a request to the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) to reconsider
the decision in Bettie J. Conley v. Department of the Navy, EEOC Appeal
No. 01963818 (September 30, 1998). 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).
On February 4, 1994, complainant filed a formal complaint of
discrimination on the bases of race (African-American) and reprisal
(prior EEO activity), when:
the Human Resources Office (HRO), Naval Air Station, Jacksonville,
Florida, (�Activity�) refused to fill the GM-13 EEO Specialist position
in September 1992 because complainant was recommended for the position
by the selection advisory panel;
the HRO filled GM-13 positions with three White females but continually
refused to establish a separate EEO Manager, GM-13 position;
the agency failed to protect EEO officials after placing them (under
consolidation with civilian personnel) in that they knew to be a hostile
work environment; and
the Activity did not fill the position after promising the position
could be filled from 1992 until the present, all to avoid selecting
complainant.<1>
The prior decision found that complainant's main contention was that
despite the agency's argument that a hiring freeze existed for GM-13
positions, the agency placed three individuals into GM-13 positions,
but failed to place complainant into a GM-13 EEO Manager position.
The prior decision determined that the agency articulated legitimate,
nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions, namely, that complainant was
not placed into the EEO Specialist position because of the possibility
that the position would be given to an individual as part of a separate
EEO settlement. Furthermore, the prior decision found the agency
articulated reasons for the other selections, which complainant did
not establish to be pretext for discrimination. Finally, the prior
decision found complainant failed to provide any evidence to support
her hostile work environment claim. In sum, the prior decision found
no discrimination.
In her request, complainant reiterates her contentions that the agency
violated personnel regulations, and that its reasons for selecting
the other individuals to GM-13 positions despite a hiring freeze are a
pretext. After a review of 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. Although complainant
argues that the agency's reasons for its actions lack credence, she failed
to provide persuasive evidence that the agency failed to select her for
the position in question due to a discriminatory or retaliatory motive.
The decision in EEOC Appeal No. 01963818 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
4/15/02
Date
1The agency's final decision noted that complainant acknowledged Issue
4 was identical to Issue 1.