01972154
09-03-1999
Gail Sakuma, Frances Sinnema, )
Nancy Allison, Susan Runtz, )
Gail Sakuma, Frances Sinnema, )
Corry Stevens, Arlene Strong, ) Appeal Nos. 01972160,
Joyce Zuber, Melody Rasmor, ) 01972152, 01972153,
Louise Hope, ) 01972154, 01972155,
Appellants, ) 01972156, 01972157,
) 01972158 & 01972159
v. )
) Agency Nos. 94-1125 &
Togo D. West, Jr., ) 94-1132 through 94-1139
Secretary, )
Department of Veterans Affairs, )
Agency. )
___________________________________)
DISMISSAL OF APPEALS
On January 7, 1997, Nancy Allison, Susan Runtz, Gail Sakuma, Frances
Sinnema, Corry Stevens, Arlene Strong, Joyce Zuber, Melody Rasmor and
Louise Hope (appellants) each timely appealed the final decision of
the Department of Veterans Affairs, dated November 29, 1996, which
consolidated appellants' ten individual complaints and concluded they
had each not been discriminated against in violation of Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act 0f 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. �2000e et seq., and the
Equal Pay Act of 1963, as amended, 29 U.S.C. �206(d) et seq. Appellants,
present and former employees of the Veterans Medical Center located in
Portland, Oregon, had alleged that the agency discriminated against them
on the basis of their sex (female) by its failure to pay them, as nurse
practitioners, salaries equal to those paid to physician assistants.
The record indicates that on November 14, 1995, sometime after they
had filed their EEO complaints with the agency, appellants filed a
consolidated complaint with the United States Court of Federal Claims
(Case No. 95-752C), raising the identical Equal Pay Act claim as that
alleged in their EEO complaints. Thereafter, the parties entered into
negotiations and, on July 9, 1998, entered into a Joint Stipulation For
Entry of Final Judgment in which the agency agreed to pay appellants
$100,000 in damages to:
...settle this action and resolve all of [appellants'] claims, as
of the effective date of this settlement, relating to or involving
sex discrimination in compensation and unequal compensation of nurse
practitioners and physician assistants in violation of Title VII or of
the Equal Pay Act, irrespective of whether the claims have been asserted
in this action...
Pursuant to this settlement agreement, on July 15, 1998, the Court
entered a Judgment on behalf of appellants awarding the agreed-upon
damages.
Based on foregoing, the Commission hereby dismisses the above-entitled
ten appeals pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement between
the parties and 29 C.F.R. �1614.410.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0795)
The Commission may, in its discretion, reconsider the decision in this
case if the appellant or the agency submits a written request containing
arguments or evidence which tend to establish that:
1. New and material evidence is available that was not readily available
when the previous decision was issued; or
2. The previous decision involved an erroneous interpretation of law,
regulation or material fact, or misapplication of established policy; or
3. The decision is of such exceptional nature as to have substantial
precedential implications.
Requests to reconsider, with supporting arguments or evidence, MUST
BE FILED WITHIN THIRTY (30) CALENDAR DAYS of the date you receive this
decision, or WITHIN TWENTY (20) CALENDAR DAYS of the date you receive
a timely request to reconsider filed by another party. Any argument in
opposition to the request to reconsider or cross request to reconsider
MUST be submitted to the Commission and to the requesting party
WITHIN TWENTY (20) CALENDAR DAYS of the date you receive the request
to reconsider. See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.407. All requests and arguments
must bear proof of postmark and be submitted to the Director, Office of
Federal Operations, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, P.O. Box
19848, Washington, D.C. 20036. In the absence of a legible postmark,
the request to reconsider shall be deemed filed on the date it is received
by the Commission.
Failure to file within the time period will result in dismissal of your
request for reconsideration as untimely. If extenuating circumstances
have prevented the timely filing of a request for reconsideration,
a written statement setting forth the circumstances which caused the
delay and any supporting documentation must be submitted with your
request for reconsideration. The Commission will consider requests
for reconsideration filed after the deadline only in very limited
circumstances. See 29 C.F.R. � l6l4.604(c).
FOR THE COMMISSION:
September 3, 1999
_________________ __________________________________
DATE Carlton M. Hadden, Acting Director
Office of Federal Operations