01a10887
03-27-2001
Darrell A. Cooper, Complainant, v. John Ashcroft, Attorney General, Department of Justice (Immigration and Naturalization Service), Agency.
Darrell A. Cooper v. Department of Justice
01A10887
March 27, 2001
.
Darrell A. Cooper,
Complainant,
v.
John Ashcroft,
Attorney General,
Department of Justice
(Immigration and Naturalization Service),
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A10887
Agency No. I99H019
Hearing No. 100-AO-7663X
DECISION
Darrel A. Cooper (complainant) timely initiated an appeal from a
final agency action concerning his complaint of unlawful 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. The appeal is
accepted pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405. Complainant alleges he was
discriminated against on the basis of sex (male) when he was not selected
for the position of Supervisory Contract Specialist on January 14, 1999.
For the following reasons, we REVERSE and REMAND the agency's final
action.
The record reveals that during the relevant time, complainant was employed
as a Procurement Analyst at the agency's Washington, D.C. facility.
Believing he was a victim of discrimination, complainant sought EEO
counseling and, subsequently, filed a formal complaint on April 8, 1999.
At the conclusion of the investigation, complainant was provided a
copy of the investigative file and requested a hearing before an EEOC
Administrative Judge (AJ). The AJ issued a decision without a hearing
finding no discrimination.
The AJ concluded that the agency proffered a legitimate, nondiscriminatory
reason for not selecting complainant, namely, that complainant was not
the best qualified. The AJ noted that complainant failed to establish
that his qualifications were so plainly superior as to require a finding
of pretext. The AJ also noted that complainant's disagreement with the
agency's judgment regarding qualifications does not satisfy his burden
of establishing pretext. The agency's final action implemented the AJ's
decision.
Complainant raises similar arguments on appeal to those he raised before
the agency and the AJ. He asserts that there are numerous genuine
issues of material fact in dispute, reiterating arguments he made in
his Response to the Notice of Summary Judgment.
The agency stands on the record and requests that we affirm its final
action implementing the AJ's decision.
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. 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 does not
sit as a fact finder. Id. 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. A disputed 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 under Title VII, an AJ
may properly consider summary judgment only upon a determination that
the record has been adequately developed for summary disposition.
The courts have been clear that summary judgment is not to be used as
a "trial by affidavit." Redmand v. Warrener, 516 F.2d 766, 768 (1st
Cir. 1975). The Commission has noted that when a party submits an
affidavit and credibility is at issue, "there is a need for strident
cross-examination and summary judgment on such evidence is improper."
Pedersen v. Department of Justice, EEOC Request No. 05940339 (February
24, 1995).
After a careful review of the record, we find that the AJ erred when she
concluded that there was no genuine issue of material fact in this case.
In finding no discrimination, the AJ relied on the representations of
management officials, as provided in their affidavits, that the selectee
(S1) was selected over complainant because she was the best qualified.
Complainant, however, disputed that claim, and attempted to establish that
it was pretextual by asserting that S1 was pre-selected for the position
and that this pre-selection was motivated by her sex. In support of this
argument, complainant noted that one of the selecting officials (SO)
who rated S1 as best qualified, served as S1's immediate supervisor at
the time of the selection, a practice prohibited by the agency's Merit
Selection Plan. While the agency asserted that SO served on the panel
but did not rate S1, SO acknowledged in his affidavit that he did rate S1
as the best qualified. Furthermore, complainant contended that S1 was
allowed to serve as Acting Branch Chief for more than a year, prior to
the opening of the position in question, whereas neither he nor two other
qualified male employees were given a chance to serve in this capacity
and gain similar experience, despite their requests to do so. He also
alleged that allowing an individual to remain detailed to a higher graded
position for more than 120 days without competition, as was the case with
S1's detail to the Acting Branch Chief position, violates that agency's
Merit Selection Procedure, an allegation that the agency did not deny.
From complainant's testimony and the documentation that supports it,
a reasonable fact finder could infer that S1 was pre-selected and that
this pre-selection was motivated, at least in part, by her sex.
We note that the hearing process is intended to be an extension of the
investigative process, designed to �ensure that the parties have a fair
and reasonable opportunity to explain and supplement the record and to
examine and cross-examine witnesses.� See EEOC Management Directive
(MD) 110, as revised, November 9, 1999, Chapter 6, page 6-1; see also
29 C.F.R. �� 1614.109(c) and (d). �Truncation of this process, while
material facts are still in dispute and the credibility of witnesses is
still ripe for challenge, improperly deprives complainant of a full and
fair investigation of her claims.� Mi S. Bang v. United States Postal
Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01961575 (March 26, 1998). See also Peavley
v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Request No. 05950628 (October
31, 1996); Chronister v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Request
No. 05940578 (April 23, 1995). Here, there are unresolved issues which
require an assessment as to the credibility of the various management
officials and complainant, himself. Therefore, judgment as a matter of
law for the agency should not have been granted.
Accordingly, after a careful review of the record, including complainant's
arguments on appeal, the agency's response, and arguments and evidence
not specifically discussed in this decision, the Commission REVERSES the
agency's final action and REMANDS the matter to the agency in accordance
with this decision and the ORDER below.
ORDER
The agency shall submit to the Hearings Unit of the Washington Field
Office the request for a hearing within fifteen (15) calendar days of
the date this decision becomes final. The agency is directed to submit a
copy of the complaint file to the EEOC Hearings Unit within fifteen (15)
calendar days of the date this decision becomes final. The agency shall
provide written notification to the Compliance Officer at the address set
forth below that the complaint file has been transmitted to the Hearings
Unit. Thereafter, the Administrative Judge shall issue a decision on the
complaint in accordance with 29 C.F.R. � 1614.109 and the agency shall
issue a final action in accordance with 29 C.F.R. � 1614.110.
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMISSION'S DECISION (K0900)
Compliance with the Commission's corrective action is mandatory.
The agency shall submit its compliance report within thirty (30)
calendar days of the completion of all ordered corrective action. The
report shall be submitted to the Compliance Officer, Office of Federal
Operations, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, P.O. Box 19848,
Washington, D.C. 20036. The agency's report must contain supporting
documentation, and the agency must send a copy of all submissions to
the complainant. If the agency does not comply with the Commission's
order, the complainant may petition the Commission for enforcement of
the order. 29 C.F.R. � 1614.503(a). The complainant also has the right
to file a civil action to enforce compliance with the Commission's order
prior to or following an administrative petition for enforcement. See 29
C.F.R. �� 1614.407, 1614.408, and 29 C.F.R. � 1614.503(g). Alternatively,
the complainant has the right to file a civil action on the underlying
complaint in accordance with the paragraph below entitled "Right to File
A Civil Action." 29 C.F.R. �� 1614.407 and 1614.408. A civil action
for enforcement or a civil action on the underlying complaint is subject
to the deadline stated in 42 U.S.C. � 2000e-16(c)(Supp. V 1993). If the
complainant files a civil action, the administrative processing of the
complaint, including any petition for enforcement, will be terminated.
See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.409.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0900)
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
(R0900)
This is a decision requiring the agency to continue its administrative
processing of your complaint. However, if you wish to file a civil
action, you have the right to file such action in an appropriate United
States District Court within ninety (90) calendar days from the date
that you receive this decision. In the alternative, you may file a
civil action after one hundred and eighty (180) calendar days of the
date you filed your complaint with the agency, or filed your appeal
with the Commission. 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.
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
March 27, 2001
Date