01A23331_r
01-09-2003
James I. Watts, Complainant, v. John Ashcroft, Attorney General, Department of Justice, Agency.
James I. Watts v. Department of Justice
01A23331
January 9, 2003
.
James I. Watts,
Complainant,
v.
John Ashcroft,
Attorney General,
Department of Justice,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A23331
Agency Nos. B-94-2158
P-97-9188
B-99-2310
B-00-2348<1>
Hearing No. 100-A0-7999X
DECISION
Complainant timely initiated an appeal from the agency's final order
concerning his equal employment opportunity (EEO) 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 record reveals that during the relevant time, complainant,
a Computer Specialist at the agency's Federal Bureau of Prisons,
Washington, D.C., filed four formal EEO complaints on June 29, 1994
(Agency No. B-94-2158); June l4, 1998 (Agency No. P-97-9188); December 8,
1998 (Agency No. B-99-2310); and November 9, 1999 (Agency No. B-00-2348).
Complainant alleged that he was discriminated against in reprisal for
prior protected activity when:
1. he received an inaccurate performance appraisal of "fully successful"
for the rating period of April 1994 to March 1995 (Agency No. B-94-2158);
2. he received an inaccurate performance evaluation of "fully successful"
containing inaccurate comments for the rating period of April 1995
through March 1996 (Agency No. P-97-9188);
3. he received a lower performance appraisal for the period of April
1997 through March 1998 (Agency No. B-99-2310);
4. he received no work assignments to perform during the period of
August 3, 1998 to October 26, 1998 (Agency No. B-99-2310);
5. he received a "fully successful" annual performance appraisal for the
rating period of April 1998 through March 1999 (Agency No. B-00-2348); and
6. he did not receive any assignments following May 23, 1999 (Agency
No. B-00-2348).
Regarding Agency No. B-94-2158, the record reflects that the agency
previously dismissed eight claims pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.107(c),
on the grounds that they were the basis of a pending civil action.
On appeal, the Commission determined that complainant's civil action
concerned only the performance appraisals that complainant received for
the periods ending 1990 through 1994, but not the performance appraisal
for the period ending 1995. The Commission found that the agency erred
in finding that the April 19, 1995 performance appraisal claim was
directly related to the subject matter of complainant's civil action.
The Commission reversed the agency's dismissal of the claim regarding
the performance appraisal for the period ending 1995, and remanded the
matter to the agency. On remand, the agency was specifically ordered to
process the remanded allegation in accordance with 29 C.F.R. � 1614.108.
Watts v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01972822 (January
8, 1999).
Following the Commission's January 8, 1999 decision, the agency
processed the remanded claim (identified herein as �Claim 1" in Agency
No. B-94-2158) by consolidating this claim with complainant's other
three complaints (Agency Nos. P-97-9188, B-99-2310, and B-00-2348).
At the conclusion of the investigation, complainant received a copy
of the investigative report and requested a hearing before an EEOC
Administrative Judge (AJ). The AJ issued a decision without a hearing,
finding no discrimination.
In her decision, the AJ found that the agency articulated legitimate,
nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions. The AJ found that complainant
did not establish that more likely than not, the agency's articulated
reasons were a pretext to mask unlawful retaliation.
With respect to complainant's performance claims, the AJ found that
a review of the record reveals that complainant received a �Fully
Successful� rating for the rating periods at issue. The AJ further found
that complainant lacked analytical and technical skills necessary for
his position to warrant a higher evaluation. Specifically, the AJ found
that the record contains complainant's first level supervisor's affidavit
concerning complainant's performance. In his affidavit, the supervisor
stated that complainant would take an assignment and would accomplish
the assignment, but often times for someone with the number of years of
experience that he had at that time, he seemed limited in his abilities
in that area. The supervisor stated that as a consequence, she rated
him as fully successful The record also contains complainant's second
level supervisor's affidavit concerning complainant's performance. In his
affidavit, the second level supervisor states that complainant needed to
�have everything spelled out in writing� in order to do an effective job.
Moreover, the second level supervisor states that complainant's work
performance did not compare to other people at the same grade level.
Regarding complainant's assignment claims, his first and second level
supervisors confirmed that complainant was without work for a period of
time because there were a limited number of tasks that could be assigned
to him due to his limited analytical skills. Complainant's first
level supervisor stated that he attempted to find available assignments
for complainant during the relevant time period but there were none.
Therefore, the AJ found complainant failed to provide evidence to refute
the agency's assessment of his performance or the reason for his limited
duties.
The agency's final order implemented 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. 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, 322-323 (1986); Oliver v. Digital
Equipment Corporation, 846 F.2d 103, 105 (1st Cir. 1988). A fact is
�material� if it has the potential to affect the outcome of a case.
If a case can only be resolved by weighing conflicting evidence, summary
judgment is not appropriate. In the context of an administrative
proceeding, an AJ may properly consider summary judgment only upon a
determination that the record has been adequately developed for summary
disposition.
After a careful review of the record, the Commission finds that grant
of summary judgment was appropriate, as no genuine dispute of material
fact exists. We find that the AJ's decision properly summarized the
relevant facts and referenced the appropriate regulations, policies,
and laws. Further, construing the evidence to be most favorable to
complainant, we note that complainant failed to present evidence that
any of the agency's actions were motivated by discriminatory animus
toward complainant's protected classes.
Accordingly, the agency's final action implementing the AJ's decision
was proper and is AFFIRMED.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0701)
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 (S0900)
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 (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
January 9, 2003
__________________
Date
1The record reflects that in the final decision
that is the subject of the instant appeal, the agency consolidated the
captioned complaints.