05A10334
04-26-2002
Ivarine B. Williams, Complainant, v. John Ashcroft, Attorney General, Department of Justice, Agency.
Ivarine B. Williams v. Department of Justice
05A10334
April 26, 2002
.
Ivarine B. Williams,
Complainant,
v.
John Ashcroft,
Attorney General,
Department of Justice,
Agency.
Request No. 05A10334
Appeal No. 01A04433
Agency No. I-98-E-024
Hearing No. 170-99-8496X
DENIAL OF REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
Ivarine B. Williams (complainant) timely initiated a request to the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) to reconsider
the decision in Ivarine B. Williams v. Department of Justice, EEOC
Appeal No. 01A04433 (January 12, 2001). Complainant alleged that she
was discriminated against on the bases of race (Black), national origin
(Jamaican), and age (54) when she was not selected for the position of
Supervisory District Adjudications Officer.
The Commission's previous decision affirmed the administrative judge's
(AJ) summary judgment finding. While the AJ found that a prima facie case
was established on all three bases, the agency explained that complainant
was not interviewed and not selected primarily because of the disciplinary
action that was taken against her prior to the selection at issue where
complainant called a co-worker a �house ni_ _er.� The AJ held that
complainant could not rebut the agency's reasons for not selecting her.<1>
In her request for reconsideration, complainant asserts that summary
judgment was inappropriate since the investigative interrogatories
answered by the selecting officials were not clear and the agency �kept
much relevant information from the record.� Contrary to complainant's
assertion,
we find the record complete. Moreover, we note that complainant fails
to articulate what �relevant information� was not provided and how such
information could have rebutted the agency's articulated, legitimate
non-discriminatory reason for its employment action.
Complainant also argues that the AJ was biased because she did not allow
a hearing despite the fact that the complainant timely requested one.
We find this argument without merit since the regulations allow for a
decision without a hearing and the facts of this case indicate that a
hearing was not necessary. See 29 C.F.R. �1614.109(g). Complainant
also argues that the selecting official was not credible, but fails
to point to any testimony or documentation supporting her contention.
Upon review of the record, we find no reason to conclude that the
selecting official was not credible. Lastly, complainant argues that
since another qualified Black candidate also did not receive an interview,
bias on the part of the selecting official is clear. We find this fact,
alone, insufficient to warrant a hearing, since complainant nevertheless
fails to rebut the agency's articulated legitimate, non-discriminatory
reason for its employment action.
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).
After a review of complainant's request for reconsideration, 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. 01A04433 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
April 26, 2002
__________________
Date
1 Complainant's sole rebuttal was that she was more qualified than the
selectee for the position, which the record did not support.