Complainant,v.Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner, Social Security Administration, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Jan 24, 2014

0120130195 (E.E.O.C. Jan. 24, 2014)

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. 0120130195

Hearing No. 420-2012-00102X

Agency No. ATL-11-0842-SSA

DECISION
On October 19, 2012, Complainant filed an appeal from the Agency’s final order concerning
her equal employment opportunity (EEO) complaint alleging employment discrimination in
violation of Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Rehabilitation Act), as amended, 29
U.S.C. § 791 et seq

. For the following reasons, the Commission AFFIRMS the Agency’s
final order.

BACKGROUND
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a Teleservice
Representative at the Agency’s facility in Birmingham, Alabama. On September 29, 2011,
Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging that the Agency discriminated against her on the
bases of her disability (visually impaired) and in reprisal for prior protected EEO activity when
on August 25, 2011, management did not select her to receive either recognition of
contribution (ROC) award or an exemplary contribution or service (ECS) award.

At the conclusion of the investigation, the Agency provided Complainant with a copy of the
report of investigation and notice of her right to request a hearing before an EEOC
Administrative Judge (AJ). Complainant timely requested a hearing. The AJ assigned to the
case found that, after viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to Complainant, a decision
without a hearing was appropriate as there were no genuine issues of material fact. The AJ
issued a decision without a hearing on September 24, 2012, finding no discrimination. The
Agency subsequently issued a final order adopting the AJ’s finding that Complainant failed to
prove that the Agency subjected her to discrimination as alleged. On appeal, Complainant
0120130195

2
contends that the AJ erred in issuing a decision without a hearing and reiterates her allegation
that she was subjected to unlawful reprisal and disability discrimination.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
As an initial matter we note that, as this is an appeal from a final decision issued without a
hearing, pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.110(b), the Agency’s decision is subject to de novo
review by the Commission. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.405(a). 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 102, 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, it is not appropriate for an AJ to issue a decision without a hearing. In the context of
an administrative proceeding, an AJ may properly issue a decision without a hearing only upon
a determination that the record has been adequately developed for summary disposition. Petty
v. Defense Security Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01A24206 (July 11, 2003); Murphy v. Dept.
of the Army

, EEOC Appeal No. 01A04099 (July 11, 2003).
After a careful review of the record, the Commission finds that a decision without a hearing
was appropriate, as no genuine dispute of material fact exists. To prevail in a disparate
treatment claim such as this, Complainant must satisfy the three-part evidentiary scheme
fashioned by the Supreme Court in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973).
She must generally establish a prima facie case by demonstrating that she was subjected to an
adverse employment action under circumstances that would support an inference of
discrimination. Furnco Constr. Co. v. Waters, 438 U.S. 567, 576 (1978). The prima facie
inquiry may be dispensed with where the Agency has articulated legitimate and
nondiscriminatory reasons for its conduct. See U.S. Postal Serv. Bd. of Governors v. Aikens,
460 U.S. 711, 713-17 (1983); Holley v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Request No.
05950842 (Nov. 13, 1997). To ultimately prevail, Complainant must prove, by a
preponderance of the evidence, that the Agency’s explanation is a pretext for discrimination.
Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (2000); St. Mary’s Honor Ctr. v.
Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 519 (1993); Tex. Dep’t of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 256
(1981); Holley, supra; Pavelka v. Dep’t of the Navy, EEOC Request No, 05950351 (Dec. 14,
1995).
0120130195

3

Here, we find that assuming, arguendo, Complainant established a prima facie case of
disability and reprisal discrimination, we concur with the AJ’s determination that the Agency
nonetheless articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions. Specifically, the
record shows that on October 26, 2010, Complainant received her performance appraisal for
the rating period October 1, 2009 through September 30, 2010. Complainant was rated at the
level ‘successful contribution’ for all elements of her performance, and thus was given an
overall rating of 3 out of 5. The record further shows that, under Agency guidelines, in order
to be eligible for an ROC award, an employee must average at least 4 out of 5. Accordingly,
management did not recommend Complainant for an ROC award for fiscal year 2010, as her
overall rating of 3 on her performance appraisal did not qualify her for an award. As to the
ECS award, in order for an employee to be eligible, he or she must perform an extraordinary
service or act, in connection with or related to official duty, or demonstrate exemplary
individual contributions to group performance. Here, the record shows that Complainant’s
supervisor (S1) initially recommended Complainant for an ECS award, however a review of
Complainant’s performance appraisal showed that Complainant had been reprimanded for not
adhering to the office availability policy with respect to absences from her desk while assigned
to phone duty, and was directed to “be mindful of her breaks and lunch period.” Additionally,
S1 found that Complainant had not performed any services or acts, connected to her official
duties, which would qualify her for the ECS award. Accordingly, S1 withdrew Complainant’s
name from recommendation for the award. We find that Complainant has proffered no
evidence, beyond her mere assertions, to show that the Agency’s actions with respect to the
ROC and ECS awards were motivated by discriminatory or retaliatory animus. Nor has she
shown that the Agency’s articulated reason for its actions, namely that she did not meet the
criteria for the awards at issue, was pretextual.

CONCLUSION
We find that viewing the record evidence in a light most favorable to Complainant, there are
no genuine issues of material fact. We further find that the AJ appropriately issued a decision
without a hearing finding no discrimination. Therefore, we discern no basis to disturb the AJ’s
decision and the Agency’s final order 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.
0120130195

4

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).
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
0120130195

5
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 24, 2014