01a52709
09-21-2005
Sammie Springs, Complainant, v. R. James Nicholson, Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs, Agency.
Sammie Springs v. Department of Veterans Affairs
01A52709
September 21, 2005
.
Sammie Springs,
Complainant,
v.
R. James Nicholson,
Secretary,
Department of Veterans Affairs,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A52709
Agency No. 2004-0565-200410023
Hearing No. 140-2004-00308X
DECISION
Complainant initiated an appeal from the agency's final order, dated
January 18, 2005, concerning his equal employment opportunity (EEO)
complaint of unlawful employment discrimination. For the following
reasons, the Commission AFFIRMS the agency's final order.
The record reveals that complainant, was at the relevant time, a
Laundry Plant Manager, GS-08 at the agency's Fayetteville, North Carolina
facility. Complainant filed a formal EEO complaint on November 18, 2003,
alleging that the agency discriminated against him on the bases of race
(Black) and reprisal for prior EEO activity when:
On October 10, 2003, complainant was subjected to harassment when the
Chief of Environmental Management Services (Durham) called complainant
and falsely accused him of being unable to effectively coordinate
consolidated laundry support services between three medical centers
(Salisbury, Durham and Fayetteville).
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, dated December 30,
2004, without a hearing, finding no discrimination.
The AJ concluded that complainant failed to establish a prima facie
case of harassment based on race or reprisal.<1> Specifically, the AJ
found that complainant failed to demonstrate that the incident described
in his complaint was either sufficiently severe or pervasive to rise
to the level necessary to state an actionable claim. Complainant
alleged that the Chief of Environmental Management Services for another
agency installation told complainant that he (the Chief) believed that
complainant had not done anything for the agency in four years, that he
did not believe anything complainant said, and that the Chief displayed
to complainant conduct that was rude, unprofessional and discourteous.
The AJ found that even if true, the incident(s) described did not
unreasonably interfere with complainant's ability to work, and the
AJ found a reasonable person would not have perceived the conduct as
hostile or abusive. Accordingly, the AJ found that complainant did
not prove that race or reprisal discrimination 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.
Id. at 255. An issue of fact is "genuine" if the evidence is such that
a reasonable fact finder could find in favor of the non-moving party.
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 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 establish that he was subjected to
a hostile work environment based on race or reprisal.
We therefore AFFIRM the agency's final order finding no discrimination.
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
September 21, 2005
__________________
Date
1The AJ also specifically excluded any ruling relating to an
unsatisfactory rating on complainant's performance appraisal in 2003,
and removal from the Laundry Plant Manager position in March 2004.
The AJ found these claims were not part of complainant's complaint and
the complaint was not amended to include them. Complainant has not
challenged this ruling on appeal.