01971171
11-19-1998
Saeed U. Din, Appellant, v. F. Whitten Peters, Acting Secretary, Department of the Air Force, Agency.
Saeed U. Din v. Department of the Air Force
01971171
November 19, 1998
Saeed U. Din, )
Appellant, )
)
v. ) Appeal No. 01971171
) Agency No. HH2W95019
F. Whitten Peters, ) EEOC No. 100-95-7978X
Acting Secretary, )
Department of the Air Force, )
Agency. )
______________________________)
DECISION
Appellant timely appealed the agency's final decision that it had
not discriminated against him 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 of 1967 (ADEA), as amended, 29
U.S.C. �621 et seq. The Commission accepts this appeal in accordance
with EEOC Order No. 960.001.
Appellant filed a formal complaint on March 22, 1995, alleging
discrimination because of his race (Asian), religion (Muslim), national
origin (Pakistan), and age (DOB: 6/1/41), when on January 12, 1995,
he was informed that he was not considered or selected for a Contract
Specialist, GS-1102-5/11, position. Following the investigation,
appellant requested a hearing by an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ).
On January 29, 1996, the agency filed a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to
State a Claim or in the alternative, a Motion for Findings and Conclusions
Without a Hearing. After considering the parties' submissions, the AJ
issued Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, on September 9, 1996,
pursuant to 29 C.F.R. �1614.109(e). In her Findings, the AJ found that
appellant had failed to establish a prima facie case and that he was
not discriminated against. Thereafter, on November 12, 1996, the agency
issued its final decision (FAD), adopting the AJ's recommended finding of
no discrimination. It is from this decision that appellant now appeals.
Specifically, in her decision, the AJ found that appellant applied
for the position of Contract Specialist, GS-1102-5, in September 1994.
The AJ found that the Vacancy Announcement required that applicants
for the position have received a bachelor's degree from an accredited
institution or have completed at least 24 credit hours in business-related
disciplines. The eligibility requirements were based on the GS-1102
qualification standard for Contract Specialist positions. Appellant's
application shows that he holds undergraduate degrees in mathematics,
physics, and electrical engineering from the University of Peshawar
in Pakistan. The Staffing Specialist testified that appellant did
not submit the required documentation showing that his degrees were
equivalent to degrees obtained from an accredited college or university
in the United States. Thus, appellant's application was never referred
to the Selecting Official for consideration or selection.
The AJ found that the Vacancy Announcement for the position stated that
applicants needed to show that they had graduated from an accredited
college or university, but appellant failed to submit the necessary
documentation. She further found that appellant acknowledged the
requirement in his affidavit. Although appellant argued that he would
have submitted the documentation had he known it was a requirement,
the AJ found that appellant was on notice of the requirement as it was
stated in the Vacancy Announcement. The Staffing Specialist testified
that she had never certified as eligible any applicant who had a degree
from a foreign institution and who did not submit additional documentation
showing that his or her degree was equivalent to a degree obtained from
an accredited institution in the United States. She also testified
that although she did not call appellant to alert him that he had been
found ineligible for the position, she also did not alert the other 63
applicants found ineligible for the position. Finding that appellant's
application did not meet the educational requirements of the position,
the AJ found that appellant had failed to establish a prima facie case,
and failed to prove that he was discriminated against.
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 appropriate regulations, policies and laws.
The Commission has reviewed appellant's statement on appeal and discerns
no basis to disturb the AJ's finding of no discrimination. Accordingly,
it is the decision of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to
AFFIRM the agency's final decision.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0795)
The Commission may, in its discretion, reconsider the decision in this
case if 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. �1614.604(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. 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 (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 19, 1998
___________________ ____________________________
DATE Ronnie Blumenthal, Director
Office of Federal Operations