05980004x
11-04-1999
M. Louisa Beld, Appellant, v. Bruce Babbitt, Secretary, Department of the Interior, Agency.
M. Louisa Beld, )
Appellant, )
) Request No. 05980004
v. ) Appeal No. 01970269
) Agency No. WBR-96-001
Bruce Babbitt, )
Secretary, )
Department of the Interior, )
Agency. )
)
DENIAL OF REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
On April 4, 1998, M. Louisa Beld (appellant) timely initiated a request
to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the Commission) to
reconsider the decision in Beld v. Department of the Interior, EEOC
Appeal No. 01970269 (August 22, 1997). EEOC regulations provide that the
Commissioners may, in their discretion, reconsider any previous Commission
decision. 29 C.F.R. �1614.407(a). The party requesting reconsideration
must submit written argument or evidence which tends to establish one
or more of the following three criteria: new and material evidence is
available that was not readily available when the previous decision
was issued, 29 C.F.R. �1614.407(c)(1); the previous decision involved
an erroneous interpretation of law, regulation, or material fact, or a
misapplication of established policy, 29 C.F.R. �1614.407(c)(2); or the
decision is of such exceptional nature as to have substantial precedential
implications, 29 C.F.R. �1614.407(c)(3). Appellant's request is denied.
Appellant filed a formal complaint on October 4, 1995. The agency
issued its final agency decision (FAD), dismissing a portion of
appellant's complaint pursuant to 29 C.F.R. �1614.107(a), finding that
those allegations failed to state a claim. Upon appeal, the previous
decision affirmed the agency's dismissal of appellant's complaint.
In her complaint, appellant alleged discrimination on the basis of sex
(female) and reprisal when: (1) from February 1, 1995 through June 30,
1995, appellant's supervisor performed her midterm reviews in an improper
and disparate manner; (2) from February 1, 1995 through June 30, 1995,
appellant's supervisor gave her ratings of �Fully Successful� on her
appraisals; (3) during the 1994 performance rating period, appellant's
supervisor overlapped her 1994 and 1995 appraisal periods; and (4) on
August 21, 1995, appellant's supervisor told her that she was no longer
with the �high grades� like other employees. In its FAD, the agency
found that allegations (1) and (4) failed to state a claim. The FAD also
dismissed allegation (3) finding that there was no overlap. The agency
found that appellant received her 1994 performance rating on January 31,
1995, for the appraisal period from July 1, 1993 through September 30,
1994 (extended to December 14, 1994) and her 1995 performance rating
on April 6, 1995 for the period from February 1, 1995 through June
30, 1995. The previous decision affirmed the agency's action citing 29
C.F.R. �1614.107(a).
Appellant's request for reconsideration involves the Commission's
regulations that require an agency to cancel a complaint that
fails to state a claim where an employee is not aggrieved. See 29
C.F.R. �1614.107(a). The Commission's federal sector case precedent has
long defined an "aggrieved employee" as one who suffers a present harm
or loss with respect to a term, condition, or privilege of employment
for which there is a remedy. Diaz v. Department of the Air Force,
EEOC Request No. 05931049 (April 21, 1994).
As to allegations (1), (3), and (4), we find that appellant challenges
actions which have not resulted in a harm or loss with respect to a term,
condition, or privilege of employment. She is not aggrieved and therefore
fails to state a claim.
After a review of appellant's request for reconsideration, the previous
decision, and the entire record, the Commission finds that appellant's
request does not meet the criteria of 29 C.F.R. �1614.407(c), and it is
the decision of the Commission to deny appellant's request. The decision
of the Commission in Appeal No. 01970269 remains the Commission's final
decision. There is no further right of administrative appeal from a
decision of the Commission on a request for reconsideration.
RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (P0993)
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.
It is the position of the Commission that 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.
You should be aware, however, that courts in some jurisdictions have
interpreted the Civil Rights Act of 1991 in a manner suggesting that
a civil action must be filed WITHIN THIRTY (30) CALENDAR DAYS from the
date that you receive this decision. To ensure that your civil action
is considered timely, you are advised to file it WITHIN THIRTY (30)
CALENDAR DAYS from the date that you receive this decision or to consult
an attorney concerning the applicable time period in the jurisdiction
in which your action would be filed. 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 (Z1092)
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:
Nov. 4, 1999
DATE Frances M. Hart
Executive Officer
Executive Secretariat