05A20078
12-20-2001
Dawn Olson, Complainant, v. Paul H. O'Neill, Secretary, Department of the Treasury, Agency.
Dawn Olson v. Department of Treasury
05A20078
12-20-01
.
Dawn Olson,
Complainant,
v.
Paul H. O'Neill,
Secretary,
Department of the Treasury,
Agency.
Request No. 05A20078
Appeal No. 01983200
Agency No. 97-4112
DECISION ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
The agency timely initiated a request to the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (EEOC or Commission) to reconsider the decision in Dawn Olson
v. Department of Treasury, EEOC Appeal No. 01983200 (July 19, 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 this case, complainant filed a formal EEO complaint on January 31,
1997, alleging that she had been discriminated against on the bases of
disability (cerebral palsy) and reprisal (prior EEO activity) when the
agency failed to provide her with a reasonable accommodation when she was
forced to take a downgrade and when the door to the agency's facility was
not sufficiently accessible. In its final decision, the agency determined
that complainant failed to establish her claim of discrimination.
The previous decision affirmed the agency's finding of no discrimination.
In its request for reconsideration, the agency states that the Commission
should rescind our previous decision based on complainant's filing
of a civil action in the U.S. District Court of Utah. We find that
the agency has not shown that the previous decision involved clearly
erroneous interpretation of material fact or law. In particular, we
note that we were not made aware of complainant's civil action prior to
the issuance of the previous decision. Therefore, it is the decision
of the Commission to deny the request in that the agency failed to meet
the criteria of 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405(b).
However, in light of the documents presented by the agency in its request,
it is the Commission's decision to reconsider the case on our own motion.
The agency's request indicates that complainant filed a civil action on
June 17, 1999, prior to the previous decision being issued. A review
of the civil action indicates that it encompasses the allegations
raised in complainant's complaint. Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.409,
all administrative processing of complainant's appeal is terminated.
Complainant, by filing the civil action, elected to proceed in the Federal
Court system. Therefore, the Commission lacked jurisdiction to issue
the previous decision. Accordingly, the previous decision is VACATED.<1>
FOR THE COMMISSION:
______________________________
Carlton M. Hadden, Director
Office of Federal Operations
___12-20-01_______________
Date
1 The agency also presented evidence that in January 2001, complainant
and the agency entered into a settlement agreement that resolved her
civil action.