05970735x
11-05-1999
Solime A. Thomas, Appellant, v. Janet Reno, Attorney General, Department of Justice, Agency.
Solime A. Thomas, )
Appellant, )
)
v. ) Request No. 05970735
) Appeal No. 01964129
) Agency No. P958776
Janet Reno, )
Attorney General, )
Department of Justice, )
Agency. )
______________________________)
DENIAL OF REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
On May 5, 1997, Solime A. Thomas (hereinafter referred to as appellant)
initiated a request to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
(EEOC) to reconsider the decision in Thomas v. Department of Justice,
EEOC Appeal No. 01964129 (April 10, 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 misapplication of established policy, 29 C.F.R. �1614.407(c)(2);
and the previous 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.
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.<1>
The decision of the Commission in Appeal No. 01964129 remains the
Commission's final decision. There is no further right of administrative
appeal from 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:
Nov. 5, 1999
______________ ______________________
DATE Carlton Hadden
Acting Director
Office of Federal Operations
1
The
Commission
considered
the
evidence
presented
by
appellant
showing
that
she
actually
filed
her
formal
EEO
complaint
on
September
19,
1995.
However,
we
find
that
appellant's
apparent
decision
to
adjudicate
her
grievance
was
tantamount
to
an
election
of
remedies
and
appellant
should
not
be
permitted
to
have
the
same
allegations
heard
twice.
See
Khera
v.
DOD,
DLA,
EEOC
Request
No.
05920280
(April
23,
1992).