Louise A. Williams, Complainant,v.Gale A. Norton, Secretary, Department of the Interior, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionJul 16, 2002
01990160_01990502 (E.E.O.C. Jul. 16, 2002)

01990160_01990502

07-16-2002

Louise A. Williams, Complainant, v. Gale A. Norton, Secretary, Department of the Interior, Agency.


Louise A. Williams v. Department of the Interior

01990160 & 01990502

July 16, 2002

.

Louise A. Williams,

Complainant,

v.

Gale A. Norton,

Secretary,

Department of the Interior,

Agency.

Appeal Nos. 01990160 & 01990502

Agency Nos. FWS-96-036 & FWS-96-016

Hearing Nos. 320-97-8359X & 320-96-8380X

DECISION

Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405, the Commission accepts the complainant's

appeals from the agency's final decisions in the above-entitled matters.

Regarding Appeal No. 01990160, the issue on appeal is whether the

complainant has established that the agency discriminated against her

based on disability (depression, anxiety, post traumatic stress and

irritable bowel syndrome) and reprisal (prior Title VII activity) when she

learned through an employee notice given to her by a coworker that she was

being reassigned to the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), Denver Administrative

Service Center (DASC) on April 30, 1996. She further alleged that this

reassignment could cause her to lose the emotional support of a coworker

who was not being reassigned. With respect to Appeal No. 01990502,

the issue is whether the complainant has established that the agency

discriminated against her based on disability (anxiety and depression)

and reprisal (prior Title VII activity) when: (1) her supervisor denied

her administrative leave to participate in a federal court proceeding in

connection with her EEO cases on January 9, 1995; and (2) her supervisor

denied her administrative leave to visit her psychologist and prepare

her EEO cases on November 30, 1995, and December 18, 1995, respectively.

For purposes of analysis, we shall assume without finding that the

complainant is an individual with a disability and that she is qualified.

After a careful review of the record, it is the decision of the Equal

Employment Opportunity Commission to AFFIRM both of the agency's final

agency decisions (FAD). We affirm the FAD in 01990160 because the

Administrative Judge's issuance of a decision without a hearing was

appropriate and a preponderance of the record evidence does not establish

that discrimination

occurred. We affirm the FAD in 01990502 because the Administrative

Judge's ultimate finding, that unlawful employment discrimination was not

proven by a preponderance of the evidence, is supported by the record.<1>

STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL

RECONSIDERATION (M0701)

The Commission may, in its discretion, reconsider the decision in this

case if the complainant or the agency submits a written request containing

arguments or evidence which tend to establish 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.

Requests to reconsider, with supporting statement or brief, must be filed

with the Office of Federal Operations (OFO) within thirty (30) calendar

days of receipt of this decision or within twenty (20) calendar days of

receipt of another party's timely request for reconsideration. See 29

C.F.R. � 1614.405; Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive for

29 C.F.R. Part 1614 (EEO MD-110), 9-18 (November 9, 1999). All requests

and arguments must 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 timely filed if it is received by

mail within five days of the expiration of the applicable filing period.

See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.604. The request or opposition must also include

proof of service on the other party.

Failure to file within the time period will result in dismissal of your

request for reconsideration as untimely, unless extenuating circumstances

prevented the timely filing of the request. 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. � 1614.604(c).

COMPLAINANT'S RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (S0900)

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. If you

file a request to reconsider and also file a civil action, filing a civil

action will terminate the administrative processing of your complaint.

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

July 16, 2002

__________________

Date

1We also conclude that the EEOC Denver District Director (Director)

correctly denied the request for recusal of the Denver District

EEOC Administrative Judge from conducting EEOC hearings in which

the complainant's attorney participated for reasons set forth in the

Director's February 18, 1998, letter.