01A10229
04-16-2001
Jimmy M. Roberts, Complainant, v. Lawrence J. Delaney, Acting Secretary, Department of the Air Force, Agency.
Jimmy M. Roberts v. Department of the Air Force
01A10229
04-16-01
.
Jimmy M. Roberts,
Complainant,
v.
Lawrence J. Delaney,
Acting Secretary,
Department of the Air Force,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A10229
Agency No. HPOF99078
Hearing No. 350-99-8389X
DECISION
INTRODUCTION
On October 11, 2000, Jimmy M. Roberts (complainant) initiated an appeal
to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) from
the final decision of the Department of the Air Force (agency), 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.
For the following reasons, we AFFIRM the agency's final decision.
ISSUE PRESENTED
The issue presented herein is whether complainant was discriminated
against on the basis of sex when he was not selected for the position
of Personnel Systems Specialist, GS-11.
BACKGROUND
During the relevant time, complainant was employed as a Supply
Technician, GS-05, with the Supply Division, 75th Air Base Wing,
Hill Air Force Base (AFB), Utah. On December 2, 1998, the responsible
management official (RMO) initiated an action to establish and fill two
Personnel Systems Specialist positions, GS-301-11, in the Personnel
Data Systems Branch (DPCD). One position served as the Assistant
Personnel Systems Manager, and the other position served as the Local
Area Network (LAN) administrator for the Civilian Personnel Division.
The RMO developed a guide and assigned points for each candidate's
knowledge of the Civilian Personnel Computer Systems and the associated
hardware, computer management, and oral and written communication skills.
The Air Force Automated Promotions and Placements Referral System (PA)
identified a list of eligible candidates, and complainant's name was
listed among them. On January 6, 1999, Merit Promotion Certificate C010
was issued. Two female candidates who worked in DPCD were referred as
�best qualified.� Complainant, along with three other male candidates
and four female candidates, was referred as �next best qualified.� On
January 11, 1999, RMO selected the two female candidates referred as
best qualified to fill the two Personnel Management Specialist positions,
effective January 31, 2000.
Believing he was a victim of discrimination, complainant sought EEO
counseling and, subsequently, filed a formal complaint on March 22, 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.
In his analysis, the AJ went directly to the ultimate issue of whether
complainant had shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the agency's
actions were motivated by discrimination. First, the AJ concluded that
the agency articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its
action. Specifically, the selectees possessed considerable experience
in Civilian Personnel and received from the RMO the maximum points
possible in this area, the selectees had experience with the Defense
Civilian Personnel Data System, and one of the selectees had experience
with the PC III system. In reaching this conclusion, the AJ noted that
complainant's Official Personnel File (OPF) did not reflect experience
in Civilian Personnel, personnel data systems, or computer security.
Moreover, complainant received from the PA one of the lowest scores of
the candidates who were referred for the positions. The AJ then found
that complainant failed to show that the agency's articulated reasons
were a pretext for gender discrimination. Complainant contended that
RMO did not review his OPF and his qualifications were superior to
the two selectees' qualifications. Complainant further contended that
the selectees had an advantage because they received training and he
did not. However, the AJ determined that the evidence did not support
complainant's assertion because: 1) complainant did not possess experience
in Civilian Personnel Systems, an important criteria; 2) complainant
failed to indicate the specific training(s) that he was denied, nor did he
show that the selectees were given training as a result of their gender;
and 3) complainant failed to provide sufficient evidence proving that
he was more qualified for the position than the selectees. The agency's
final action, dated September 18, 2000, implemented the AJ's decision.
Complainant raises no new contentions on appeal. The agency stands on
the record and requests that we affirm its final action implementing
the AJ's decision.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
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.
After a careful review of the record, the Commission finds that the
AJ correctly determined that complainant was not subjected to sex
discrimination with regard to his non-selection for the position of
Personnel Systems Specialist, GS-11. The agency articulated legitimate,
non-discriminatory reasons for its actions, namely that the selectees
possessed considerable experience in Civilian Personnel and received
the maximum points possible in this area, the selectees had experience
with the Defense Civilian Personnel Data System, and one selectee had
experience with the PC III system. The AJ then correctly determined that
complainant failed to show that the agency's articulated reasons for its
actions were a pretext for prohibited discrimination. Although complainant
argues that RMO did not review his OPF and his qualifications are superior
to the two selectees', the record does not support his contentions.
Complainant fails to demonstrate that his qualifications for the
position were "so plainly superior as to require a finding of pretext"
on this basis. Bauer v. Bailar, 647 F.2d 1037, 1048 (10th Cir. 1981).
Furthermore, complainant fails to provide evidence that the selectees
received training that he did not because of their gender. To the extent
that complainant argues that candidates outside of the personnel office
were at a disadvantage for being selected for the positions, we find that
the complainant fails to prove that the agency acted on the basis of sex.
In sum, complainant fails to present evidence that any of the agency's
actions in not selecting him were more likely than not a pretext for
discriminatory animus toward complainant's gender. Therefore, after a
careful review of the record and arguments and evidence not specifically
addressed in this decision, we find that the AJ's decision finding no
discrimination was proper, and that the issuance of a decision without
a hearing was appropriate.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, we AFFIRM the agency's final decision.
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 (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
__04-16-01________________
Date