01a60315_r
04-26-2006
Billy Coakley, Complainant, v. Bill Baxter, Chairman, Tennessee Valley Authority, Agency.
Billy Coakley v. Tennessee Valley Authority
01A60315
April 26, 2006
.
Billy Coakley,
Complainant,
v.
Bill Baxter,
Chairman,
Tennessee Valley Authority,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A60315
Agency No. 0719-2002-047
Hearing No. 250-2003-08069X
DECISION
Complainant initiated an appeal from the agency's final order<1>
concerning his equal employment opportunity (EEO) complaint of unlawful
employment discrimination in violation of the Age Discrimination in
Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), as amended, 29 U.S.C. � 621 et seq.
For the following reasons, the Commission AFFIRMS the agency's final
order.
The record reveals that complainant, a Maintenance Mechanic/Boilermaker
at the agency's Cumberland Fossil Plant facility, filed a formal EEO
complaint on July 9, 2002, alleging that the agency discriminated against
him on the bases of age (51) and reprisal for prior EEO activity<2>,
when:
Complainant was not selected for the position of Maintenance
Mechanic/Machinist Foreman position (VPA #017798) on or about May 7,
2002.
At the conclusion of the investigation, complainant received a copy of the
investigative report and requested a hearing before an EEOC Administrative
Judge (AJ). On May 27, 2003, the agency moved for summary judgment on the
grounds that no material facts remained in dispute between the parties.
Subsequently, the AJ granted the agency's motion and issued a decision,
dated August 11, 2004, without a hearing, finding no discrimination.<3>
The AJ concluded that complainant failed to establish a prima facie case
of age discrimination. Specifically, the AJ found that complainant failed
to demonstrate that similarly situated employees not in complainant's
protected classes were treated differently under similar circumstances
when complainant was not selected for the position of foreman from among
forty-seven applicants for thirteen supervisory positions. The AJ
observed that among the selectees, (at the time of the selections),
four selectees were under the age of forty, five were between the ages of
forty and forty-nine, three were between the ages of fifty and fifty-nine,
and one was over the age of sixty. Specifically, the AJ noted that the
undisputed evidence established that the Agency selected candidates who
were older than complainant and also candidates who were younger than
complainant for the vacant positions. Accordingly, the AJ found that
complainant failed to show that candidates not in his protected class
received preferential treatment.
On appeal, the agency argues that complainant's appeal is untimely
inasmuch as the AJ's decision became final 40 days after it was received,
in the absence of any final decision issued by the agency. We find that
complainant's appeal is timely. There is no persuasive evidence showing
that complainant knew of when the agency received the agency decision.
Without such knowledge by complainant, we find that complainant could
not be expected to know when the 40-day time limit for the agency to
issue their decision should begin.
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. If a case
can only be resolved by weighing conflicting evidence, summary judgment
is not appropriate. In the context of an administrative proceeding,
an AJ may properly consider summary judgment only upon a determination
that the record has been adequately developed for summary disposition.
After a careful review of the record, the Commission finds that grant of
summary judgment was appropriate, as no genuine dispute of material fact
exists. We find that the AJ's decision properly summarized the relevant
facts and referenced the appropriate regulations, policies, and laws.
Specifically, the AJ considered the agency articulated legitimate reasons
for its selection decisions, namely, its reliance on the overall scores
achieved by the selectees as a result of the application and interview
process during which all interviewees were asked the same questions by the
interview panel and permitted to answer from their years of experience as
appropriate. The AJ observed that complainant's overall score was lower
than the scores achieved by the selectees. Significantly, we note that
four of the thirteen selectees were older than complainant at the time
of the selection. Further, construing the evidence to be most favorable
to complainant, we note that complainant failed to present evidence that
complainant's age had any impact on the agency's selection process.
We therefore AFFIRM the agency's final decision finding no
discrimination.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0701)
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), 9-18 (November 9, 1999). All requests
and arguments must be submitted to the Director, Office of Federal
Operations, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, P.O. Box 19848,
Washington, D.C. 20036. In the absence of a legible postmark, the
request to reconsider shall be deemed timely filed if it is 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 (S0900)
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 (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
April 26, 2006
__________________
Date
1The record reveals an internal memorandum
that appears to be the agency's �Final Decision� dated June 17, 2005.
However, this memorandum does not appear to have been directed to
complainant, and accordingly, we deem the Administrative Judge's (AJ)
decision, dated August 11, 2004, to have become the agency's final
decision pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.109(i).
2Reprisal is listed as a basis in complainant's complaint, but appears to
have been abandoned as a basis prior to the submission of the complaint
to the AJ.
3The AJ's consolidated five complaints at the hearing level all of which
involved unsuccessful candidates for the thirteen foreman positions and
therefore issued a single decision that addressed all five complaints.
All five complainants claimed age discrimination. In addition, one
complainant listed disability as a basis and several complainants listed
reprisal as a basis of discrimination. The AJ found no discrimination
occurred as alleged in the five complaints.