05A20648
08-08-2002
Kathryn Keane, Complainant, v. John Ashcroft, Attorney General, Department of Justice, Agency.
Kathryn Keane v. Department of Justice
05A20648
08-08-02
.
Kathryn Keane,
Complainant,
v.
John Ashcroft,
Attorney General,
Department of Justice,
Agency.
Request No. 05A20648
Appeal No. 01991804
Agency Nos. I-91-5893, I-91-5902, I-94-6597
Hearing Nos. 320-96-8421X, 320-97-8219X, 320-97-8220X
DENIAL OF REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
Kathryn Keane (complainant) timely initiated a request to the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) to reconsider
the decision in Kathryn Keane v. Department of Justice, EEOC Appeal
No. 01991804 (March 7, 2002). 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 complaint, the complainant claimed that she was discriminated
against on the basis of her age (12/29/37) when she did not receive a
cash award in June 1990. She also claimed that she was discriminated
against on the basis of reprisal when her supervisor yelled at her on
January 22, 1991; her work performance plan was changed in April 1991;
and her upgrade to a GS-5 Contact Representative position was delayed.
Following an investigation, the complainant requested a hearing.
The agency filed a motion for summary judgment. The AJ granted the
agency's motion and made a finding of no discrimination as to all the
issues. In her request for reconsideration, complainant maintains that
the agency's report, that was forwarded to the EEOC, did not contain the
specific names of the persons involved in her complaint or information
regarding a sexual encounter that she witnessed.
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 because complainant
failed to demonstrate that the appellate decision involved a clearly
erroneous interpretation of material fact or law. We find complainant
failed to show that the Commission erred when: it held that the evidence
demonstrated that complainant did not receive a cash award because her
contributions to the project were not viewed as substantial; no adverse
employment action occurred when complainant was yelled at on January
22, 1991; complainant's work plan was changed in order to make it more
accurate; and finally, complainant's position upgrade was delayed because
it had to go through official channels. We agreed that complainant failed
to prove that the agency's legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons were
a pretext for discrimination. Further, with respect to complainant's
contentions in the instant complaint, we find complainant failed to show
how the publishing of the names of those involved in the complaint and the
inclusion of information regarding a sexual encounter that she witnessed
lead to a clearly erroneous interpretation of material fact or law.
We note that specific names are not used in Commission decisions due
to the confidential nature of the decisions and, complaints about the
processing of an existing complaint, should be forwarded to the agency
official responsible for complaint processing.<1> Therefore, the decision
in EEOC Appeal No. 01991804 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
___08-08-02_______________
Date
1 EEOC Regulation 29 C.F.R. � 1614.107(a)(8)
provides for the dismissal of spin-off complainants, which are complaints
about the processing of existing complaints. It provides instead
that complaints about the processing of existing complaints should be
referred to the agency official responsible for complaint processing,
and/or processed as part of the original complaint. EEOC Management
Directive (MD-110), Chapter 5, (November 9, 1999).