01A05960
04-26-2001
John Ward, Complainant, v. William A. Halter, Acting Commissioner, Social Security Administration, Agency.
John Ward v. Social Security Administration
01A05960
04-26-01
.
John Ward,
Complainant,
v.
William A. Halter,
Acting Commissioner,
Social Security Administration,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A05960
Agency No. 98-0578-SSA
Hearing No. 160-AO-8343X
DECISION
INTRODUCTION
On September 12, 2000, John Ward (complainant) initiated an appeal to
the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) from
the final decision of the Social Security Administration (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, and the Age Discrimination in
Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), as amended, 29 U.S.C. � 621 et seq.
The appeal is accepted pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405.
ISSUE PRESENTED
The issue presented herein is whether complainant was discriminated
against on the bases of race (black), color (black) and age
(D.O.B. 7/10/51) when he was assigned a larger workload.
BACKGROUND
Complainant, a Claims Representative, GS-11, worked in the Yonkers
District Office in the T16 Unit on a compressed work schedule (CWS).
Under complainant's CWS, complainant worked one day per week in the office
and was a union representative for the remaining time. In November 1997,
complainant's supervisor advised the staff, including complainant,
that they would be assigned larger workloads due to the resignation
of a co-worker. According to complainant, after he met with his
supervisor to discuss his �desk,� his workload was changed from �P-S
re-determinations to T-Z re-determinations,�and he was assigned the
responsibility of determining �post-entitlement� or �follow-ups.�<1>
Complainant averred that his co-workers were treated more favorably,
in that they were given more time away from interviewing Social Security
claimants and beneficiaries to complete their tasks. Complainant's unit
included males and females; blacks, whites and Hispanics; and individuals
over and under the age of forty.
On July 15, 1998, complainant filed a formal complaint . The agency
conducted an investigation, provided complainant with a copy of the
investigative report, and advised complainant of his right to request
either a hearing before an EEOC administrative judge (AJ) or an immediate
final agency decision. Complainant requested a hearing before an AJ.
The AJ issued a decision without a hearing, finding no discrimination.
The AJ found that complainant failed to establish a prima facie case
of race, color and age discrimination because he failed to show that
similarly situated individuals, not in his protected group, were treated
more favorably. The AJ determined that complainant was not similarly
situated to any Claim Representative in the T16 Unit, because he worked
one day a week while all other Claim Representatives worked five days
per week. Moreover, the AJ found that, even if complainant established
a prima facie case of discrimination, the record did not show that the
agency's stated reason for the change in complainant's assignment was
pretext for discrimination.
On September 5, 2000, the agency's final decision implemented 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 esists 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's decision properly summarized the relevant facts and referenced the
appropriate regulations, policies, and laws. Applying the standards
set forth in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973),
the Commission agrees with the AJ that complainant failed to establish
a prima facie case of discrimination. Even assuming that complainant
established a prima facie case of race, color and age discrimination,
the agency articulated a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for its
actions, namely that all employees in the T16 Unit were assigned larger
workloads due to the resignation of a co-worker. Complainant fails
to provide any evidence that the agency's proffered reason was pretext
for discrimination. To the extent that complainant argues that he
was not given sufficient non-interview time, a problem exacerbated by
the resignation of complainant's co-worker, we find that the agency's
actions were not discriminatory. Therefore, after a careful review of
the record, including arguments and evidence not specifically addressed
in this decision, we find that the AJ's decision finding no discrimination
was proper.
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
___04-26-01_______________
Date
1 Complainant contends that he was called into his supervisor's office
and asked to explain why his work was not up-to-date. Complainant's
supervisor stated that she called complainant into her office in order
to conduct a required annual performance review.