Evangleses Moore, Jr., Complainant,v.Timothy F. Geithner, Secretary, Department of the Treasury, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionApr 16, 2009
0120080185 (E.E.O.C. Apr. 16, 2009)

0120080185

04-16-2009

Evangleses Moore, Jr., Complainant, v. Timothy F. Geithner, Secretary, Department of the Treasury, Agency.


Evangleses Moore, Jr.,

Complainant,

v.

Timothy F. Geithner,

Secretary,

Department of the Treasury,

Agency.

Appeal No. 0120080185

Agency No. EEODFS-06-0921-F

Hearing No. 451-2007-00135X

DECISION

Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405, the Commission accepts complainant's

appeal from the agency's August 31, 2007, final order 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. Complainant alleged that the

agency discriminated against him on the bases of race (Black) and sex

(male) when:

1. On or around August 2, 2006, he was not selected for the position

of Correspondence Exam Technician GS-5/6/7;

2. On or around August 18, 2006, he was not selected for the position

of Correspondence Exam Technician, GS-7; and

3. In August 2006, he was issued a performance appraisal rating with

an overall rating of "4.2" Exceeds Fully Successful, for the period July

1, 2005 through June 30, 2006.

Following an investigation by the agency, complainant, an Examination

Clerk, GS-4 requested a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ).

The AJ issued a decision without a hearing finding that complainant had

failed to demonstrate that he was discriminated against. Specifically,

the AJ found that the agency articulated legitimate nondiscriminatory

reasons for its actions, namely, that with respect to the vacancy

in issue #1, complainant, while making the Best Qualified (BQ) list,

was not selected because he did not do well during the interview and

because he lacked the technical experience that the selectees possessed.

With respect to his performance during the interview, it was reported

that he did not make eye contact, offered brief responses and sometimes

did not answer the questions being asked. With respect to the position in

issue #2, the agency explained that the BQ had to be amended several times

and it was not until its third amendment that complainant made the list.

There were originally 13 positions available. The selecting official for

this announcement indicated that she chose the first 13 candidates off

of the BQ list, and at that time complainant's name was not on the list.

She then got approval to select two more people, this time complainant's

name was included on the BQ list, but she chose two seasonal employees

over complainant because she wanted the seasonal employees to become

permanent employees of the agency.1

With respect to issue #3, the agency explained that complainant received

the rating of "4.2" Exceeds Fully Successful instead of a "5" Outstanding

because he had been counseled regarding several work deficiencies

during the rating period.2 The AJ found that with respect to all issues

complainant failed to demonstrate that the agency's articulated reasons

were pretext for discrimination.

After a review of the record in its entirety, including consideration

of all statements submitted on appeal, it is the decision of the Equal

Employment Opportunity Commission to affirm the agency's final order.

We find that even if complainant established a prima facie case as

to all bases, we agree that the agency has articulated legitimate

nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions, namely, that with respect to

issue #1, complainant failed to do well during the interview and did not

have the technical experience necessary for the position and therefore

was not selected. With respect to issue #2, the first 13 candidates

were selected from the BQ list and then two seasonal workers were also

selected. With respect to this claim, there was no evidence presented

which indicates that complainant's race or sex were considered because

his race and sex were unknown to the selecting official at the time

of the selections. Regarding, issue #3, the agency indicated that

complainant had been counseled regarding several performance issues

during the rating period and therefore received the correct rating.

Finally, the Commission notes that complainant has argued that he

was better qualified than the selectees of both positions, we find

that complainant has not shown that the disparities in qualifications

between him and the selectees are "of such weight and significance

that no reasonable person, in the exercise of impartial judgment,

could have chosen the [selectee] over [him] for the job in question."

Ash v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 190 Fed.Appx. 924, 88 Empl. Prac. Dec. P

42,608 (11th Cir. 2006), cert. denied, 127 S.Ct. 1154 (Jan. 22, 2007).

Therefore, the Commission agrees that complainant failed to demonstrate

that the agency's reasons were pretext for prohibited discrimination.

Accordingly, the Administrative Judge's issuance of a decision without

a hearing was appropriate and a preponderance of the record evidence

does not establish that discrimination occurred.

STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL

RECONSIDERATION (M1208)

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 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 (S0408)

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 (Z1008)

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

04/16/09

__________________

Date

1 Complainant was listed as number 15 on the BQ list and the seasonal

workers (two females, race unknown) were ranked as 17 and 19. At the

time of the selection, the selecting official maintains that she was

unaware of complainant's race and sex.

2 Complainant was counseled regarding a variety of matters: the progress

of his work, as he was regularly behind; he needed assistance from other

Clerks since he was the only one on the team; he left a co-worker's

computer locked; he failed to set priorities; he did not always work

efficiently; he did not volunteer to assist others or take the initiative

to acquire additional assignments when his own work was done; and he

misused a government computer.

??

??

??

??

4

0120080185

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

Office of Federal Operations

P.O. Box 77960

Washington, DC 20013