05A21275_r
03-13-2003
Mary S. Parrish, Complainant, v. Thomas E. White, Secretary, Department of the Army, Agency.
Mary S. Parrish v. Department of the Army
05A21275
March 13, 2003
.
Mary S. Parrish,
Complainant,
v.
Thomas E. White,
Secretary,
Department of the Army,
Agency.
Request No. 05A21275
Appeal No. 01A22657
Agency No. BEHTFO0012A1030
Hearing No. 100-A1-7941X
DENIAL OF REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
Mary S. Parrish (complainant) timely initiated a request to the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) to reconsider
the decision in Mary S. Parrish v. Department of the Army, EEOC Appeal
No. 01A22657 (August 6, 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).
Complainant filed a formal complaint date November 30, 2000, claiming that
she was discriminated against based on national origin, race and reprisal.
Specifically, complainant claimed:
(1) The agency requested that she provide a paragraph explaining her
qualifications for a volunteer Contract Specialist position and why she
was interested in that position;
(2) The agency subjected her to harassment after she filed the instant
complaint.
At the conclusion of the investigation, complainant received a copy
of the investigative report and requested a hearing before an EEOC
Administrative Judge (AJ). The AJ issued a decision without a hearing,
finding no discrimination.
The AJ noted, with respect to claim (1), that the transition of an
individual from the 2130 series to the 1102 series was cancelled.
Consequently, he found that the issue failed to state an actionable claim.
Assuming that the incident did state a claim, the AJ concluded that
complainant failed to establish a prima facie case. While complainant
argued that listing calculus as a requirement and requiring a paragraph
on qualifications was discriminatory, the AJ found that the complainant
did not show that she was treated differently than a similarly situated
person outside her protected groups. Finally, the AJ determined that,
even assuming that the complainant did establish a prima facie case,
the agency articulated a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason: that no
one was transferred to the position due to the union's objection.
Regarding the claim of harassment, claim (2), the AJ considered the
incidents described by complainant, including management officials
walking through her work area to observe her whereabouts and being told
that the placement of her file cabinet within her cubicle created a
safety hazard. The AJ found no indication that the incidents were based
on complainant's prior EEO activity or membership in a protected group.
Further, he did not find that they were "sufficiently severe or pervasive"
to alter her working conditions and create an abusive environment.
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. 01A22657 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
March 13, 2003
__________________
Date