Complainant,v.Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner, Social Security Administration, Agency.Download PDFEqual Employment Opportunity CommissionJan 31, 20140120132138 (E.E.O.C. Jan. 31, 2014) Copy Citation U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 , Complainant, v. Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner, Social Security Administration, Agency. Appeal No. 0120132138 Hearing No. 570-2010-01032X Agency No. ODAR-10-0079 DECISION Complainant filed an appeal from the Agency’s final order dated April 30, 2013, finding no discrimination with regard to his complaint. For the following reasons, we AFFIRM the Agency’s final order finding no discrimination. BACKGROUND In his complaint, filed on February 12, 2010, Complainant alleged discrimination based on sex (male), race (Asian/Pacific Islander), national origin (Indian/Asian), disability (epileptic seizures, migraines, and stroke), and in reprisal for prior EEO activity when he met with his supervisor to discuss the denial of his training request on September 9, 2009; and on September 15, 2009, he was given an official letter of reprimand. Upon completion of the investigation of the complaint, Complainant requested a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). On March 28, 2013, the AJ issued a decision without holding a hearing, finding no discrimination. The Agency’s final order implemented the AJ’s decision. 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, 0120132138 2 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 incidents. During the relevant time period at issue, Complainant worked as an Information Technology Specialist, GS-12, in the Agency’s Office of Disability Adjudication and Review. Complainant’s supervisor indicated that in July 2009, she solicited her employees for training requests. Complainant requested and was approved training to attend Windows Presentation Foundations and Silverlight Intro (Course 975) at Learning Tree from September 29 – October 2, 2009. However, on August 26, 2009, Complainant was notified that the foregoing training had been cancelled and postponed on alternate dates. Then, on August 27, 2009, Complainant informed his branch chief and supervisor that he was interested in training to attend Server Integration Services: Hands On (Course 134) from September 8 – 11, 2009. The supervisor indicated that she told Complainant and confirmed with the branch chief that Complainant could not attend that training since his request was not made 30 days in advance in accordance with the Agency’s policy regarding training. The supervisor further stated that Complainant then requested training to attend Developing Web Sites: Hands on (Course 470) from September 29 – October 2, 2009, but she denied the request since the training was for web developers and Complainant was a programmer, and not a web developer. The supervisor also stated that while she was on leave, Complainant made the same training request (Course 134) to other managers who also denied the request. On September 9, 2009, the supervisor called Complainant into her office to discuss his attempts to circumvent management in order to attend the training which had already been denied.1 During this meeting, the supervisor stated that Complainant became loud and confrontational and tried to leave the office before the meeting was over. Due to Complainant’s inappropriate behavior, stated the supervisor, she issued Complainant the letter of reprimand based on Labor Management Relations advice. Upon review, the Commission agrees with the AJ that Complainant failed to rebut the Agency’s legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for the denial of his requested training and 1 The Agency indicated that the supervisor made a typographical error citing September 8, 2009, instead of September 9, 2009, as the incident date. 0120132138 3 issuance of the letter of reprimand. With regard to his claim of harassment, we find that Complainant failed to establish the severity of the conduct in question or that it was related to any protected basis of discrimination. We also find that Complainant failed to show that he was treated less favorably than a similarly situated employee under similar circumstances. It is noted that we do not address in this decision whether Complainant is a qualified individual with a disability. Furthermore, we note that Complainant has not claimed that he was denied a reasonable accommodation. 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 (M0610) 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 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 77960, Washington, DC 20013. 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). 0120132138 4 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 (Z0610) 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 from the Court that the Court appoint an attorney to represent you and that the Court also 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 with the Court 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 Date January 31, 2014 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation