Complainant,v.Robert McDonald, Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs, Agency.Download PDFEqual Employment Opportunity CommissionApr 7, 20150120133182 (E.E.O.C. Apr. 7, 2015) Copy Citation U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 , Complainant, v. Robert McDonald, Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs, Agency. Appeal No. 0120133182 Agency No. 2004-0659-2012103057 DECISION On August 12, 2013, Complainant filed an appeal from the Agency’s July 23, 2013, final decision concerning his equal employment opportunity (EEO) 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 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 decision. BACKGROUND At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant was an applicant for employment as a Staff Psychiatrist, GS-0602-15, under Vacancy Announcement No. VHA- 659-RG-511726, at the Veterans Affairs Medical Center located in Salisbury, North Carolina. Complainant filed an EEO complaint dated August 22, 2012, alleging that the Agency discriminated against him on the bases of national origin (Egyptian), religion (Muslim), age (58), and in reprisal for prior protected EEO activity when: On April 2, 2012, Complainant was notified that he was not hired/selected for the position of Staff Psychiatrist, GS-0602-15, under Vacancy Announcement number VHA-659-RG-511726. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Agency provided Complainant with a copy of the report of investigation and notice of his right to request a hearing before an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Administrative Judge (AJ). When Complainant did not request a hearing within the time frame provided in 29 C.F.R. § 1614.108(f), the Agency issued a final 0120133182 2 decision pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.110(b). The decision concluded that Complainant failed to prove that the Agency subjected him to discrimination as alleged. On appeal, Complainant states that he applied for the Staff Psychiatrist position and received an electronic mail message telling him that the hiring office decided not to fill the position at the time and that the selecting office decided to cancel the certificate. Complainant states the electronic mail encouraged him to visit www.usajobs.gov to view additional Federal employment opportunities. Complainant claims that statement was “a clear indication” the Agency did not want him as an employee. Complainant also notes the Agency continued to post the position and still did not give him the position. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS As this is an appeal from a 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). See Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive for 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 , at Chapter 9, § VI.A. (November 9, 1999) (explaining that the de novo standard of review “requires that the Commission examine the record without regard to the factual and legal determinations of the previous decision maker,” and that EEOC “review the documents, statements, and testimony of record, including any timely and relevant submissions of the parties, and . . . issue its decision based on the Commission’s own assessment of the record and its interpretation of the law”). Generally, claims of disparate treatment are examined under the tripartite analysis first enunciated in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). Hochstadt v. Worcester Found, for Experimental Biology. Inc., 425 F. Supp. 318, 324 (D. Mass.), aff'd, 545 F.2d 222 (1st Cir. 1976). For Complainant to prevail, she must first establish a prima facie case of discrimination by presenting facts that, if unexplained, reasonably give rise to an inference of discrimination, i.e., that a prohibited consideration was a factor in the adverse employment action. McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 802; Furnco Constr. Corp. v. Waters , 438 U.S. 567, 576 (1978). Once a complainant has established a prima facie case, the burden of production then shifts to the Agency to articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its actions. Texas Dep't of Com. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 253 (1981). If the Agency is successful, the burden reverts back to Complainant to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the Agency's reason(s) for its action was a pretext for discrimination. At all times, Complainant retains the burden of persuasion, and it is her obligation to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the Agency acted on the basis of a prohibited reason. St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 509 (1993); U.S. Postal Serv. Bd. of Governors v. Aikens , 460 U.S. 711, 715-16 (1983). Assuming arguendo that Complainant established a prima facie claim, the Agency articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its actions. The Interim Chief of Human Resources 0120133182 3 (HR) noted that an HR Specialist determined that the position at issue could relate to several different occupational categories including Nurses, Social Workers, and Psychologists, although it was posted to one discipline, Psychiatrists. The Interim Chief stated that upon discovery of the error, HR cancelled the vacancy announcement, and re-posted the position to include the four different disciplines. The Agency noted that Complainant did not apply for the position when it was re-advertised. Upon review, we find Complainant failed to prove by a preponderance of evidence that the Agency’s actions were a pretext for discrimination. We note Complainant provided no evidence, other than his conclusory statements that he was subjected to discrimination. We conclude that Complainant did not show that the Agency canceled the position and then re- advertised it based upon discriminatory animus towards Complainant’s protected classes. Moreover, we note Complainant does not dispute that he failed to reapply for the position once it was reposted. CONCLUSION Accordingly, the Agency’s final decision 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 0120133182 4 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 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 April 7, 2015 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation