Complainant,v.Loretta E. Lynch, Attorney General, Department of Justice (Federal Bureau of Prisons), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

May 28, 2015

01-2013-2524-0500 (E.E.O.C. May. 28, 2015)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013

,
Complainant,

v.

Loretta E. Lynch,
Attorney General,
Department of Justice
(Federal Bureau of Prisons),
Agency.

Appeal No. 0120132524

Hearing No. 420-2013-00005X

Agency No. BOP-2012-0383

DECISION
Complainant filed an appeal from the Agency’s final order dated May 22, 2013, 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.
For the following reasons, we AFFIRM the Agency’s final order finding no discrimination.

BACKGROUND
In his complaint, dated February 8, 2012, Complainant alleged discrimination based on
race/color (Black) when he received a one day suspension on January 5, 2012. Upon
completion of the investigation of the complaint, Complainant requested a hearing before an
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Administrative Judge (AJ). On April 23, 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.
0120132524

2
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. Moreover, despite Complainant’s contentions on appeal, we find the
record was fully developed.
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 disciplinary action. The record indicates that on November 16, 2011,
Complainant’s Captain issued Complainant a proposal to suspend him for 10 days for his
misuse of a government computer and his failure to follow a supervisor’s instructions.
Therein, the Captain stated that on February 8, 2008, Complainant viewed a sexually explicit
video clip on a government computer and sent the video clip to another staff member.
Complainant admitted this. The Captain also indicated that on May 31, 2009, despite his
supervisor’s instructions, Complainant refused to participate in a Use of Force Team.
Complainant acknowledged the incident. Complainant argued that it was not fair that he was
receiving the 10-day suspension for not participating in the foregoing Use of Force Team
action on that day because he did not want to be a “point man” as usual and he had back
spasms on that day. We note that Complainant is not alleging discrimination based on
disability. On January 5, 2012, Complainant’s Warden, after considering Complainant’s
written and oral responses and his eleven years of employment, decided to issue Complainant a
suspension for one day for his conduct, described in the proposed action, instead of 10 days.

Upon review, we agree with the AJ that Complainant failed to rebut the Agency’s legitimate,
nondiscriminatory reason for the alleged disciplinary action. Complainant claimed that
comparative staff members received a letter of reprimand and not a suspension for the same
incident, i.e., misuse of a government computer. However, there is no evidence that those
staff members he described were also charged with the failure to follow a supervisor’s
instructions. Thus, we find that Complainant failed to show that he was treated less favorably
than a similarly situated employee under similar circumstances. 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.

0120132524

3
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).
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
0120132524

4
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
May 28, 2015