05A10439
06-27-2001
Carol R. Stinchcomb, Complainant, v. Gordon R. England, Secretary, Department of the Navy, Agency.
Carol R. Stinchcomb v. Department of the Navy
05A10439
June 27, 2001
.
Carol R. Stinchcomb,
Complainant,
v.
Gordon R. England,
Secretary,
Department of the Navy,
Agency.
Request No. 05A10439
Appeal No. 01A10296
Agency No. 97-62795
Hearing No. 130-A0-8204X
DENIAL OF REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
The complainant initiated a request to the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (EEOC or Commission) to reconsider the decision in Carol
R. Stinchcomb v. Department of the Navy, EEOC Appeal No. 01A10296
(February 14, 2001). 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).
In her underlying complaint, complainant alleged that the agency
discriminated against her on the bases of race (African-American),
color (black), and sex (female) when, from February to October 1997,
her request for training was denied, she was subjected to a hostile
work environment, her supervisor threatened her, she was interviewed
regarding her complaint but no action was taken against her supervisor,
her coworkers were directed to keep a logbook of her performance, she was
detailed for 120 days, her performance was rated by three supervisors,
and a second training request was denied.
In her request, complainant points out that there was a procedural
deficiency in the processing of her complaint, in that she did not
receive the required 15 days notice to respond in writing, pursuant to
EEOC Regulation 29 C.F.R. �1614.109(g), from the Administrative Judge
(AJ) before he issued a decision without a hearing. She further contends
that the EEOC appeal decision erroneously interpreted the material facts
in finding no discrimination, in that she suffered reprisal
when her immediate supervisor (S-1) created a hostile work environment
for her, after she informed him that his viewing pornography on the
Internet was offensive to her.
In its brief in opposition to complainant's request, the agency contends
that there was no procedural deficiency in that the AJ's Acknowledgment
and Order notified the parties that a decision might be issued without
a hearing. The Order specified in pertinent part:
A party shall notify the Administrative Judge within (30) calendar days
of the date of this order if he or she has objections to the issuance
of Findings and Conclusions Without a Hearing.
The agency also contended that it had articulated legitimate,
nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions which complainant did not show
were a pretext to mask a discriminatory animus. It further argued that
complainant's request did not proffer any evidence or supporting facts
which raised an inference of discrimination. The agency thus asserted
that complainant's request offered no compelling argument that the AJ's
decision involved a clearly erroneous interpretation of material fact
or law.
Even assuming, arguendo, that the AJ committed a procedural error in not
notifying complainant that she had 15 days to respond in writing before
the AJ issued his decision without a hearing, the Commission agrees with
the agency that complainant has proffered no evidence or compelling
argument that any material facts were in dispute, either on appeal or
in her instant request. Hence, we conclude that the AJ was justified
in making a decision without a hearing, and issuing summary judgment for
the agency. In this regard, we find that the AJ legitimately determined,
given the facts of the case, that complainant did not persuasively
show that she was subject to harassment which was pervasive or severe
enough to create a hostile work environment and which stemmed from a
race, color, gender, or sex-based discriminatory animus. See Jackson
v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01972555 (April 15,
1999); Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 21 (1993); EEOC
Compliance Manual, Volume 2, EEOC Notice No. 915.002 (March 8, 1994),
Enforcement Guidance on Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., at 3, 6.
After a review of the complainant's request for reconsideration, the
previous decision, and the entire record, the Commission therefore 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. 01A10296 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
June 27, 2001
Date