01a52128
05-10-2005
Myrna Valentin, Complainant, v. Alberto Gonzales, Attorney General, Department of Justice, Agency.
Myrna Valentin v. Department of Justice
01A52128
May 10, 2005
.
Myrna Valentin,
Complainant,
v.
Alberto Gonzales,
Attorney General,
Department of Justice,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A52128
Agency No. P2002-0017
Hearing No. 160-2003-08366x
DECISION
Complainant timely initiated an appeal from the agency's final order
concerning her 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 appeal
is accepted pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405. For the following reasons,
the Commission AFFIRMS the agency's final order.
The record reveals that complainant, a Corrections Supervisor (Lieutenant)
at the agency's Metropolitan Detention Center in Guayabo, Puerto Rico,
filed a formal EEO complaint on October 5, 2001, alleging that the
agency discriminated against her on the bases of sex (Female) and in
reprisal for her prior protected EEO activity. Complainant alleges
she was subjected to rude and offensive comments by an agency official
during a staff meeting. Complainant further alleges she was subjected to
reprisal discrimination when she received unprofessional comments and was
rated minimally satisfactory during her quarterly performance evaluation.
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 his decision, he adopted and incorporated
the agency's statement of the material facts as set forth in the agency's
Motion for Summary Judgment. The AJ concluded that, regarding her initial
complaint of harassment, complainant failed to allege conduct that was
either sufficiently severe or pervasive enough to alter the terms and
conditions of complainant's employment. The AJ found that complainant
failed to establish a prima facie case of harassment based on sex and
reprisal, when complainant's supervisor made rude and offensive comments
in complainant's presence during a staff meeting. The AJ noted that
complainant was not the target of the offensive comments. The Commission
further finds that the comments made were isolated remarks, not directed
at complainant based on her gender.
Regarding complainant's reprisal claim, the AJ found that while
complainant was initially given a minimally satisfactory performance
evaluation, the rating was changed when complainant explained that she
failed to sign the unit log book on June 25-27, because she was caring
for her ill father on those days. Consequently, complainant received a
rating of exceeds performance standards. Complainant argues further that
during the meeting about her performance, she was subjected to unlawful
harassment when she was questioned about proper procedure under differing
circumstances within the agency. The AJ found that the evidence of record
does not indicate that the agency official exercised anything other than
supervisory discretion during complainant's performance evaluation. The
AJ found that complainant failed to produce any evidence of pretext and
failed to prove, more likely than not, that discrimination had occurred
as alleged. 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
. 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,
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 (incorporating the facts set
forth in the agency's Motion for Summary Judgment) 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 order fully implementing the AJ's finding
of no discrimination is AFFIRMED for the reasons set forth herein.
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
May 10, 2005
__________________
Date