0520100412
09-03-2010
Bobbie A. Wilson-Robinson, Complainant, v. Janet Napolitano, Secretary, Department of Homeland Security (Transportation Security Administration), Agency.
Bobbie A. Wilson-Robinson,
Complainant,
v.
Janet Napolitano,
Secretary,
Department of Homeland Security
(Transportation Security Administration),
Agency.
Request No. 0520100412
Appeal No. 0120081628
Agency No. HS-05-TSA-001980
DENIAL
On June 2, 2010, Complainant timely requested reconsideration of the decision in Bobbie A. Robinson v. Department of Homeland Security, EEOC Appeal No. 0120081628 (May 7, 2010). 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(b). For the reasons that follow, the Commission DENIES Complainant's request.
In her complaint, Complainant claimed that the Agency discriminated against her in violation of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 29 U.S.C. �� 791, 794(c). Our appellate decision affirmed the decision of the EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ), as adopted by the Agency, that the Agency did not discriminate against Complainant based on disability (lumbar injury) when it terminated her on February 3, 2005, for excessive absence without leave. In her request, Complainant states that she did not return to work because her personal doctor had not cleared her to do so; this argument was raised in her appeal and addressed in our prior decision. The Commission found that Complainant did not demonstrate pretext, and she did not establish that the Agency failed to provide her a reasonable accommodation.
In order to merit the reconsideration of a prior decision, the Commission's regulations require the requesting party to submit written argument that tends establishes at least one of the criteria of 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405(b), i.e., that the appellate decision made a clearly erroneous interpretation of material fact or law, or that the appellate decision will substantially impact the policies, practices, or operations of the agency. The Commission's scope of review on a request for reconsideration is narrow and is not merely a second appeal. Lopez v. Dep't of the Air Force, EEOC Request No. 05890749 (Sept. 28, 1989); Regensberg v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Request No. 05900850 (Sept. 7, 1990). The Commission finds that the complainant's request does not meet the regulatory criteria of 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405(b), in that the request does not identify a clearly erroneous interpretation of material fact or law, nor does it show that the underlying decision will have a substantial impact on the policies, practices or operation of the agency.
CONCLUSION
After review of 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. 0120081628 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
September 3, 2010
Date
2
0520100412
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
3
0520100412