05A30018
12-16-2002
Virginia O. Williams, Complainant, v. Donald H. Rumsfeld, Secretary, Department of Defense (Defense Threat Reduction Agency), Agency.
Virginia O. Williams v. Department of Defense
05A30018
December 16, 2002
.
Virginia O. Williams,
Complainant,
v.
Donald H. Rumsfeld,
Secretary,
Department of Defense
(Defense Threat Reduction Agency),
Agency.
Request No. 05A30018
Appeal No. 01A11974
Agency No. DTRA99A0007
Hearing No. 350-AO-8085X
DENIAL OF REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
Virginia O. Williams (complainant) timely initiated a request to the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) to reconsider
the decision in Virginia O. Williams v. Department of Defense, EEOC
Appeal No. 01A11974 (August 29, 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).
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).
Complainant alleged that she was subjected to discrimination on the bases
of race (African-American) and color (black) when she was not afforded
the opportunity to be detailed to and later selected for the position
of Secretary (AO), GS-6. The previous decision affirmed the agency's
implementation of the Administrative Judge's finding of no discrimination,
issued on summary judgment.
Even assuming complainant established a prima facie case of
discrimination, she failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as
to the agency's explanation for its actions. Complainant's second level
supervisor (S2) testified that he did not detail complainant into the
position because his secretary had left on short notice and he wanted to
fill the position as quickly as possible so that everything was in place
for his successor, as S2 was soon leaving for a new position. It was
expected that the permanent selection would be made in approximately
30 days. Although complainant argued that she could have been detailed
into the position despite the short time frame, she did not dispute that
S2 wanted to make a permanent selection immediately, or that it only
took approximately 30 days to do so. Nor did she provide any evidence
that individuals outside of her protected groups were detailed into
positions which were expected to be filled within a short time frame.
In regard to the promotion itself, S2, the selecting official, testified
that complainant's name was not on the Promotion Certificate list
forwarded to him. The record establishes that the reason complainant's
name was not on the Promotion Certificate list was that she was number
52 on the Candidate Referral Roster, i.e., too low on the Roster to
be forwarded to the selecting official. A comparison of the Promotion
Certificate list and the Candidate Referral Roster establishes that no
one below the 17th position on the Roster was referred to S2. Although
complainant contended that the agency never explained whether her standing
on the Roster was based on her qualifications, appraisal score, or service
computation date, in an affidavit the Personnel Management Specialist
testified that complainant met all the experience requirements, but was
ranked low based on her appraisal score.
Accordingly, complainant failed to raise a genuine issue of material
fact as to the agency's explanations for its actions. In her request
for reconsideration, complainant merely reiterates her disagreement with
the AJ's decision and raises contentions that were previously considered
when rendering the appellate decision. She fails to demonstrate that
the appellate decision involved a clearly erroneous interpretation of
material fact or law, or will have a substantial impact on the polices,
practices, or operations of the agency. Therefore, it is the decision
of the Commission to deny the request. The decision in EEOC Appeal
No. 01A11974 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
December 16, 2002
Date