05a00036
03-29-2000
Carmen M. Kaplan, Complainant, v. Donna E. Shalala, Secretary, Department of Health & Human Services, Agency.
Carmen M. Kaplan v. Department of Health & Human Services
05A00036
March 29, 2000
Carmen M. Kaplan, )
Complainant, )
)
v. ) Request No. 05A00036
) Appeal No. 01973576
Donna E. Shalala, ) Agency No. NIH-120-94
Secretary, ) Hearing # 120-95-6767X
Department of Health & Human Services, )
Agency. )
)
DENIAL OF REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
On October 12, 1999, the complainant timely initiated a request to the
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Commission) to reconsider the
decision in Carmen M. Kaplan v. Department of Health & Human Services,
EEOC Appeal No. 01973576 (September 7, 1999 ).<1> EEOC regulations
provide that the Commission may, in its discretion, reconsider any
previous decision. 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,656 (1999) (to be codified
and hereinafter referred to as EEOC Regulation 29 C.F.R. �1614.405(b)).
The party requesting reconsideration must submit written argument
or evidence which tends to establish one or more of the following
two criteria: the appellate decision involved a clearly erroneous
interpretation of material fact or law; or the decision will have a
substantial impact on the policies, practices or operations of the agency.
After a review of the request for reconsideration, the previous decision,
and the entire record, the Commission finds that the's complainant's
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.<2> The decision in
EEOC Appeal No. 01973576 (September 7, 1999) remains the Commission's
final decision. There is no further right of administrative appeal from
a decision of the Commission on this request for reconsideration.
COMPLAINANT'S RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (P1199)
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:
March 29, 2000
________________ ____________________________
Date Carlton M. Hadden, Acting Director
Office of Federal Operations
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 request. The regulations, as amended, may also be found at
the Commission's website at www.eeoc.gov.
2The complainant continues to object, among other things, to the
Administrative Judge's allegedly erroneous failure to address a
fifth claim. However, the Administrative Judge represented without
objection at the hearing that the parties had agreed at a prehearing
conference that four issues were raised by the complainant's complaint.
(Hearing Transcript at pages 4-5). The four claims had been identified
in a prior Commission decision on the complaint. See Kaplan v. Department
of Health and Human Services, EEOC Appeal No. 01942866 (June 16, 1994).