Alejandro B.,1 Complainant,v.Robert McDonald, Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs, Agency.Download PDFEqual Employment Opportunity CommissionNov 30, 20160120142190 (E.E.O.C. Nov. 30, 2016) Copy Citation U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Alejandro B.,1 Complainant, v. Robert McDonald, Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs, Agency. Appeal No. 0120142190 Hearing No. 510-2013-00300X Agency No. 200I-0675-2012104065 DECISION Complainant filed an appeal from the Agency’s final order dated May 22, 2014, finding no discrimination with regard to his complaint alleging employment discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. and Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Rehabilitation Act), as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 791 et seq. For the following reasons, we AFFIRM the Agency’s final order finding no discrimination. BACKGROUND In his complaint, dated October 25, 2012, Complainant alleged discrimination based on disability and in reprisal for prior EEO activity when on July 18, 2012, he was not selected for the position of Criminal Investigator (CI) under vacancy announcement ORL 12 AE 676632. Upon completion of the investigation of the complaint, Complainant requested a hearing before an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Administrative Judge (AJ). On April 18, 2014, the AJ issued a decision without holding a hearing, finding no discrimination. The Agency’s final order implemented the AJ’s decision. 1 This case has been randomly assigned a pseudonym which will replace Complainant’s name when the decision is published to non-parties and the Commission’s website. 0120142190 2 ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS The Commission’s regulations allow an AJ to issue a decision without a hearing when he or she finds that there is no genuine issue of material fact. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.109(g). This regulation is patterned after the summary judgment procedure set forth in Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that summary judgment is appropriate where a court determines that, given the substantive legal and evidentiary standards that apply to the case, there exists no genuine issue of material fact. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986). In ruling on a motion for summary judgment, a court’s function is not to weigh the evidence but rather to determine whether there are genuine issues for trial. Id. at 249. The evidence of the non-moving party must be believed at the summary judgment stage and all justifiable inferences must be drawn in the non-moving party’s favor. Id. at 255. An issue of fact is “genuine” if the evidence is such that a reasonable fact finder could find in favor of the non-moving party. Celotex v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986); Oliver v. Digital Equip. Corp., 846 F.2D 103, 105 (1st Cir. 1988). A fact is “material” if it has the potential to affect the outcome of the case. In this case, we find that the AJ properly issued a decision without a hearing because no genuine dispute of material fact exists. In the instant case, assuming arguendo that Complainant established a prima facie case of discrimination, the AJ determined that the Agency articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for the alleged nonselection. Complainant, a Police Officer, GS-6, at the Agency’s Orlando Medical Center, indicated that he applied for the CI position, GS-1811-09/11, in June, 2012, but was not selected on July 18, 2012. The Agency, undisputed by Complainant, stated that the CI position was a drug-testing designated position and as a CI, the successful applicant was required to qualify semi-annually with his/her duty weapon. The Agency stated that: due to his permanent back conditions, Complainant admitted taking narcotics to control his back pain and refused to submit to random drug testing which was required in order for him to continue working as a Police Officer;2 on April 30, 2012, the Agency’s occupational health physician did not medically clear him for duty as a law enforcement officer because he refused to submit to drug testing; on June 18, 2012, he was also advised of his removal from the certificate for the position at issue due to medical reasons; and effective July 1, 2012, he was assigned from his Police Officer position to a Program Support Assistant, GS-6, position. We note that Complainant being medically not cleared for duty as a law enforcement officer or his being removed from his Police Officer position is not at issue. The Agency stated that it nevertheless reviewed Complainant’s application and determined that he was not one of the best qualified candidates, was not referred for an interview, and thus was not selected for the position. The Agency indicated that it selected a selectee who was the best qualified candidate. 2 It appears that Complainant filed a prior EEO complaint, Agency No. 200I-0675- 2012101877, on April 21, 2012, concerning his being subjected to random drug testing on January 13, 2012, on which the Agency found no discrimination. 0120142190 3 Specifically, the Agency indicated that Complainant worked as a Police Officer, GS-6, with the Agency Orlando facility since April, 2011, and previously, as a Police Officer, GS-7, in its Providence facility since October, 2008, to April, 2011; he had military and Agency Police Academy training; and he possessed an Associate’s degree in Criminal Justice. The Agency stated that the selectee for the position at issue worked as a CI/Instructor, GS-7, at the Agency’s Pittsburgh facility for 18 month since January, 2011; he was a Police Officer, GS-7, at the same facility since December, 2008, to January, 2011; in 2008, he became a CI and Instructor; and he earned 19 Professional Training Course Certifications from 1997 to 2011. It is noted that we do not address in this decision whether Complainant is a qualified individual with a disability. We find that Complainant failed to show that he was treated less favorably than a similarly situated employee under similar circumstances or that the Agency’s reason for his removal from the certificate for the position at issue was a pretext for discrimination. Furthermore, Complainant failed to show that his qualifications for the position were plainly superior to the selectee’s qualifications or that the Agency’s actions were motivated by discrimination. See Wasser v. Department of Labor, EEOC Request No. 05940058 (November 2, 1995). Based on the foregoing, we find that Complainant failed to show that the Agency’s action was motivated by discrimination as he alleged. CONCLUSION Accordingly, the Agency’s final order finding no discrimination is AFFIRMED. STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL RECONSIDERATION (M0416) The Commission may, in its discretion, reconsider the decision in this case if the Complainant or the Agency submits a written request containing arguments or evidence which tend to establish 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. Requests to reconsider, with supporting statement or brief, must be filed with the Office of Federal Operations (OFO) within thirty (30) calendar days of receipt of this decision or within twenty (20) calendar days of receipt of another party’s timely request for reconsideration. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.405; Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive for 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 (EEO MD-110), at Chap. 9 § VII.B (Aug. 5, 2015). All requests and arguments must be submitted to the Director, Office of Federal Operations, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The requests may be submitted via regular mail to P.O. Box 77960, Washington, DC 20013, or by certified mail to 131 M Street, NE, Washington, DC 20507. In the absence of a legible postmark, the request to reconsider shall be deemed timely filed if it is 0120142190 4 received by mail within five days of the expiration of the applicable filing period. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.604. The request or opposition must also include proof of service on the other party. Failure to file within the time period will result in dismissal of your request for reconsideration as untimely, unless extenuating circumstances prevented the timely filing of the request. Any supporting documentation must be submitted with your request for reconsideration. The Commission will consider requests for reconsideration filed after the deadline only in very limited circumstances. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.604(c). COMPLAINANT’S RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (S0610) 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. If you file a request to reconsider and also file a civil action, filing a civil action will terminate the administrative processing of your complaint. RIGHT TO REQUEST COUNSEL (Z0815) If you want to file a civil action but cannot pay the fees, costs, or security to do so, you may request permission from the court to proceed with the civil action without paying these fees or costs. Similarly, if you cannot afford an attorney to represent you in the civil action, you may request the court to appoint an attorney for you. You must submit the requests for waiver of court costs or appointment of an attorney directly to the court, not the Commission. The court has the sole discretion to grant or deny these types of requests. Such requests do not alter the time limits for filing a civil action (please read the paragraph titled Complainant’s Right to File a Civil Action for the specific time limits). FOR THE COMMISSION: ______________________________ Carlton M. Hadden’s signature Carlton M. Hadden, Director Office of Federal Operations November 30, 2016 Date Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation