01980844
11-24-1998
Patrick T. Corcoran, Appellant, v. Robert E. Rubin, Secretary, Department of the Treasury, (Internal Revenue Service), Agency.
Patrick T. Corcoran v. Department of the Treasury
01980844
November 24, 1998
Patrick T. Corcoran, )
Appellant, )
)
v. ) Appeal No. 01980844
) Agency No. 97-2003
Robert E. Rubin, ) Hearing No. 330-97-8139X
Secretary, )
Department of the Treasury, )
(Internal Revenue Service), )
Agency. )
___________________________________)
DECISION
On October 16, 1997, Patrick T. Corcoran (appellant) timely appealed
the final decision of the Department of the Treasury (agency), dated
September 19, 1997, concluding he had not been discriminated against
in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended,
42 U.S.C. � 2000e et seq., and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act
(ADEA) of 1967, as amended, 29 U.S.C. �621 et seq. In his complaint,
appellant alleged that agency officials had discriminated against him on
the bases of his race (white), sex (male), age (age 51; DOB: 08-25-44),
and/or reprisal for engaging in prior EEO activity, when, in July 1996,
he was reassigned from the position of Chief, Advisory Review, GS-13,
in the Special Procedures Branch to the position of Field Group Manager,
GS-13, in the Houston District. This appeal is accepted in accordance
with the provisions of EEOC Order No. 960.001.
At the time this matter arose, appellant had been employed by the Internal
Revenue Service since 1970, and had worked in the Houston District
since 1984. In 1991, appellant because a manager in Houston's Special
Procedures Branch, first in the bankruptcy area, and later as Chief of
the Advisory Review group. In July 1996, he was laterally reassigned
out of the Special Procedures Branch to a Field Group Manager position.
His replacement as Chief of Advisory Review was a Hispanic male in his
mid-to-late forties.
Appellant preferred his work in the Special Procedures Branch, and stated
that he felt it was a more prestigious and challenging position than
the one to which he was reassigned. He asserted that he was reassigned
because the Division Chief (black male, under the age of forty) was
engaged in a concerted pattern of favoring minorities over white males
in the Advisory Review area. Agency management denied appellant's
allegations of discrimination. They explained that all managers were
rotated in and out of Special Procedures to give them experience in the
area, which dealt with matters which did not normally come to a regular
group but might impact on their work. Management witnesses said there was
no strict schedule for the rotations because circumstances intervened
which affected who was available to rotate at any particular time.
Appellant's immediate supervisor (white male, age 53) said that appellant
remained in Special Procedures longer than most, in part to address some
minor problems with his personnel practices and because time was needed
to resolve an EEO complaint which was filed against appellant by several
of his subordinates.
On October 4, 1996, appellant filed a formal EEO complaint with the
agency, alleging that the agency had discriminated against him as
referenced above. The agency accepted the complaint and conducted
an investigation. At the conclusion of the investigation, appellant
requested an administrative hearing before an Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (EEOC) administrative judge (AJ).
On August 14, 1997, after a hearing at which six witnesses testified,
the AJ issued a decision from the bench concluding that no discrimination
or unlawful retaliation had occurred. In that decision, the AJ found
that although appellant established a prima facie case of discrimination
and/or reprisal, the agency successfully rebutted that initial inference
of discrimination with its articulation of legitimate, nondiscriminatory
reasons for the decision to reassign appellant. The AJ went on to hold
that appellant failed to meet his burden of proving, by a preponderance
of the evidence, that the agency's articulated reasons for its actions
in this matter were unbelievable or that its actions were more likely
motivated by discriminatory or retaliatory factors.
On September 19, 1997, the agency adopted the findings and conclusions
of the AJ and issued a final decision finding no discrimination or
retaliation. It is from this decision that appellant now appeals.
After a careful review of the record in its entirety, the Commission finds
that the AJ's recommended decision sets forth the relevant facts and
properly analyzes the case using the appropriate regulations, policies
and laws. Based on the evidence of record, the Commission discerns
no basis to disturb the AJ's finding of no discrimination. Nothing
proffered by appellant on appeal differs significantly from the arguments
raised before, and given full consideration by, the AJ. Accordingly,
it is the decision of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to
AFFIRM the agency's final decision which adopted the AJ's finding of no
discrimination or retaliation.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0795)
The Commission may, in its discretion, reconsider the decision in this
case if the appellant or the agency submits a written request containing
arguments or evidence which tend to establish that:
1. New and material evidence is available that was not readily available
when the previous decision was issued; or
2. The previous decision involved an erroneous interpretation of law,
regulation or material fact, or misapplication of established policy; or
3. The decision is of such exceptional nature as to have substantial
precedential implications.
Requests to reconsider, with supporting arguments or evidence, MUST
BE FILED WITHIN THIRTY (30) CALENDAR DAYS of the date you receive this
decision, or WITHIN TWENTY (20) CALENDAR DAYS of the date you receive
a timely request to reconsider filed by another party. Any argument in
opposition to the request to reconsider or cross request to reconsider
MUST be submitted to the Commission and to the requesting party
WITHIN TWENTY (20) CALENDAR DAYS of the date you receive the request
to reconsider. See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.407. All requests and arguments
must bear proof of postmark and 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 filed on the date it is received
by the Commission.
Failure to file within the time period will result in dismissal of your
request for reconsideration as untimely. If extenuating circumstances
have prevented the timely filing of a request for reconsideration,
a written statement setting forth the circumstances which caused the
delay and 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. � l6l4.604(c).
RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (S0993)
It is the position of the Commission that 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.
You should be aware, however, that courts in some jurisdictions have
interpreted the Civil Rights Act of 1991 in a manner suggesting that
a civil action must be filed WITHIN THIRTY (30) CALENDAR DAYS from
the date that you receive this decision. To ensure that your civil
action is considered timely, you are advised to file it WITHIN THIRTY
(30) CALENDAR DAYS from the date that you receive this decision or
to consult an attorney concerning the applicable time period in the
jurisdiction in which your action would be filed. 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. Filing a civil action will terminate the
administrative processing of your complaint.
RIGHT TO REQUEST COUNSEL (Z1092)
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:
Nov 24, 1998
__________________ _______________________________
DATE Ronnie Blumenthal, Director
Office of Federal Operations