01A11383
01-23-2002
Patricia C. Hodge, Complainant, v. Glenn L. McCullough, Jr., Chairman, Tennessee Valley Authority, Agency.
Patricia C. Hodge v. Tennessee Valley Authority
01A11383
January 23, 2002
.
Patricia C. Hodge,
Complainant,
v.
Glenn L. McCullough, Jr.,
Chairman,
Tennessee Valley Authority,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A11383
Agency No. 0108-97082
Hearing No. 250-97-8160X
DECISION
Complainant timely initiated an appeal from the agency's final decision
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. Complainant alleges she was
discriminated against on the basis of her sex when she was not selected
for the position of Quality Control Inspector. For the following reasons,
the Commission AFFIRMS the agency's final decision.
The record reveals that complainant was a Nuclear Inspector at the
agency's Sequoyah Nuclear Plant facility. Complainant applied for
the position of Quality Control Inspector<1> under Vacant Position
Announcement No 11018. There were 57 applicants for these positions
and 41, including complainant, were found to be minimally qualified.
The applicants were ranked based on experience, qualifications, and
certifications held. Twenty-two applicants were interviewed and 17 were
selected for the positions. Complainant was not among those interviewed
or selected.
Complainant filed a formal EEO complaint with the agency on January 8,
1997, alleging that the agency had discriminated against her as referenced
above. 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.
The AJ concluded that complainant failed to establish a prima facie
case of sex discrimination. Specifically, the AJ found that complainant
failed to demonstrate that she was treated less favorably than males who
were similarly situated to her in all relevant aspects of employment.
Moreover, the AJ noted, the record reflects, and complainant admitted,
she was not as qualified as the selectees.
Complainant also contended that males were alerted to the qualification
requirements that would be necessary for these positions, and then
encouraged to seek out the necessary certifications. The AJ, however,
found that the record did not support this contention. The AJ that
stated complainant, �has not shown that anyone in the agency provided
any information to males regarding certification and withheld that
information from females.�
The agency's final decision implemented the AJ's decision. Complainant
makes no new contentions on appeal, and the agency requests that we
affirm its final 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. This regulation is patterned after the summary judgment procedure
set forth in Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The United
States Supreme Court has stated that summary judgment is appropriate where
the trier of fact determines that, given applicable substantive law,
no genuine issue of material fact exists. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby,
Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986). In determining whether to grant summary
judgment, the trier of fact's function is not to weigh the evidence
and render a determination as to the truth of the matter, but only to
determine whether there exists a genuine factual dispute. Id. at 248-49.
Our review of an AJ's legal determinations and the decision to issue
a decision without a hearing pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.109 (g) is
based on a de novo standard of review. See EEOC Management Directive 110
(MD-110) Chap. 9-16 (1999).
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. We note that complainant
failed to present evidence that any of the agency's actions were motivated
by discriminatory animus toward complainant's sex. There are no genuine
disputes as to the material facts. We, therefore, discern no basis to
disturb the AJ's decision. Thus, after a careful review of the record,
including complainant's contentions on appeal, the agency's response,
and arguments and evidence not specifically addressed in this decision,
we affirm the agency's final action.
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 23, 2002
__________________
Date
1 This position was also referred to as Quality Assurance Specialist
in the record.