Lisa N. Relerford, Complainant,v.Timothy F. Geithner, Secretary, Department of the Treasury, (U.S. Mint), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionApr 6, 2010
0120100347 (E.E.O.C. Apr. 6, 2010)

0120100347

04-06-2010

Lisa N. Relerford, Complainant, v. Timothy F. Geithner, Secretary, Department of the Treasury, (U.S. Mint), Agency.


Lisa N. Relerford,

Complainant,

v.

Timothy F. Geithner,

Secretary,

Department of the Treasury,

(U.S. Mint),

Agency.

Appeal No. 0120100347

Hearing No. 570-2009-00475X

Agency No. MINT080512F

DECISION

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

appeal from the agency's September 24, 2009 final order concerning

her 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. and the Age

Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), as amended, 29 U.S.C. �

621 et seq.

Complainant alleged that the agency discriminated against her on the

bases of race (African-American), sex (female), and age (40) when she

was not selected for the position of U.S. Mint Police Sergeant.

Briefly, complainant alleged she should have been among the best

qualified, and selected for the position. The record indicates after

the position was advertised, that the Bureau of Public Debt and a human

resources contractor identified those who were minimally qualified and

forwarded the applications to the Office of Personnel Management (OPM)

for rating. Complainant's application was among those forwarded. OPM

used a three part job test - job knowledge, written assessment, and a

structured interview - to determine the ratings. The interviews were

conducted by an agency EEO Specialist, an agency Police Lieutenant,

a US Park Police official, and an OPM official. However, complainant

received the lowest rating. The top four applicants were selected -

two Caucasian males and two African American males.

Thereafter complainant contacted an EEO counselor and filed the

instant complaint. Following an investigation, complainant requested

a hearing. The agency filed a motion for a decision without a

hearing. Complainant did not respond to the motion. The Administrative

Judge (AJ) issued the decision without a hearing on September 17,

2009, finding no discrimination. The AJ found that complainant failed

to show that the agency's reasons for its actions were a pretext for

discrimination. The AJ noted that complainant did not show that her

qualifications were superior to those of the selectees. Thereafter the

agency adopted the AJ's findings and complainant filed the instant

appeal.

To prevail in a disparate treatment claim such as this, complainant

must satisfy the three-part evidentiary scheme fashioned by the Supreme

Court in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). He

must generally establish a prima facie case by demonstrating that

he was subjected to an adverse employment action under circumstances

that would support an inference of discrimination. Furnco Construction

Co. v. Waters, 438 U.S. 567, 576 (1978). The prima facie inquiry may be

dispensed with in this case, however, since the agency has articulated

legitimate and nondiscriminatory reasons for its conduct. See United

States Postal Service Board of Governors v. Aikens, 460 U.S. 711,

713-17 (1983); Holley v. Department of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Request

No. 05950842 (November 13, 1997). To ultimately prevail, complainant must

prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the agency's explanation

is a pretext for discrimination. Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products,

Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 120 S.Ct. 2097 (2000); St. Mary's Honor Center

v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 519 (1993); Texas Department of Community

Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 256 (1981); Holley v. Department

of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Request No. 05950842 (November 13, 1997);

Pavelka v. Department of the Navy, EEOC Request No. 05950351 (December

14, 1995).

Upon review of the record, the Commission agrees with the finding

that substantial evidence of record supports the AJ's conclusion that

complainant did not support her case of discrimination. The agency

articulated legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for the selections

made, and complainant did not show that these proffered reasons were a

pretext for discrimination. Complainant did not make any arguments on

appeal.

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,

because 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

April 6, 2010

__________________

Date

2

0120100347

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

Office of Federal Operations

P.O. Box 77960

Washington, DC 20013

2

0120100347