05980806
11-04-1999
Nedda K. Walkup, Appellant, v. A. Tanoue, Chairman, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Agency.
Nedda K. Walkup, )
Appellant, )
) Request No. 05980806
v. ) Appeal No. 01972496
) Agency No. FDIC 96-39 Donna
A. Tanoue, )
Chairman, )
Federal Deposit Insurance )
Corporation, )
Agency. )
)
DENIAL OF REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
On May 8, 1998, Nedda K. Walkup (the appellant) timely initiated a
request to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the Commission)
to reconsider the decision in Nedda K. Walkup. v. Andrew C. Hove, Acting
Chairman, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, EEOC Appeal No. 01972496
(April 2, 1998). 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 or regulation, or material fact, or a misapplication
of established policy, 29 C.F.R. �1614.407(c)(2); and the decision is of
such exceptional nature as to have substantial precedential implications,
29 C.F.R. �1614.407(c)(3).
Appellant, a supervisor in the Call Reports Analysis Unit, contacted an
EEO Counselor on February 7, 1996, alleging discrimination on the bases
of sex (female) and age (DOB: 12-2-42). Appellant alleged that several
discriminatory incidents occurred between June 1995, and February 1996.
The agency accepted those occurring within forty five days of her EEO
counselor contact and dismissed those occurring prior to that time
as untimely.<1>
In its final decision, the agency noted that the EEO Counselor stated in
her affidavit that appellant told her that she suspected discrimination
in September 1995, but hesitated to file a complaint because she hoped to
resolve the issue through either the grievance process or the Office of
the Special Counsel. The agency also analyzed appellant's allegations
as a continuing violation, but found that the incidents complained of
were separate, discrete events of a permanent nature, such that appellant
should have suspected discrimination at that time.
Appellant appealed and the Commission affirmed the agency's decision.
Appellant now requests reconsideration arguing that she made numerous
attempts to notify management of her work environment. Nothing in the
record however, substantiates appellant's claim. Appellant provides
neither dates nor names of people she contacted or attempted to contact.
After a review of the appellant's request to reconsider, the previous
decision, and the entire record, the Commission finds that the request
fails to meet the criteria of 29 C.F.R. �1614.407(c), and it is the
decision of the Commission to deny the request. The decision in EEOC
Appeal No. 01972496 (April 2, 1998) 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.
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:
November 4, 1999
Date Frances M. Hart
Executive Officer
Executive Secretariat1 The incidents
dismissed were as follows: in June
1995, appellant's supervisor (the
Supervisor) instructed her to give
an employee a fully satisfactory
performance appraisal when appellant
believed the employee should have
a lower rating; in September 1995,
appellant's memorandum suggesting
changes to office procedures was
ignored; in September 1995, the
Supervisor had a co-worker assist
in preparing appellant's annual
performance appraisal; in November
1995, the Supervisor rated appellant's
supervisory skills negatively on
her annual performance appraisal;
on December 12, 1995, the Supervisor
instructed appellant to rescind
an e-mail she sent to her staff
regarding policy; on December 13,
1995, the Supervisor told appellant
she could not have mail routed to her
after it was opened by support staff.