01a52382
05-26-2005
____________________, Complainant, v. John W. Snow, Secretary, Department of the Treasury, (Internal Revenue Service), Agency.
____________________ v. Department of the Treasury
01A52382
May 26, 2005
.
____________________,
Complainant,
v.
John W. Snow,
Secretary,
Department of the Treasury,
(Internal Revenue Service),
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A52382
Agency No. 03-3-46
Hearing No. 230-2003-04174X
DECISION
Complainant timely initiated an appeal from the agency's final order
concerning his 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, during the relevant period, complainant was
employed as a GS-343-13, Supervisory Management and Program Analyst at
the agency's Computing Center in Detroit, Michigan. Complainant filed
a formal EEO complaint on December 3, 2002, alleging that the agency
had subjected him to a hostile work environment on the basis of sex when:
(1) his temporary position of Chief, Security, Section B was not made
permanent;
management did not recognize his nominations for the Manager of the
Year award in 2001 and 2002;
management did not accept his recommendation for selection of a candidate
for an open vacancy on his team; and,
management gave him an excessive workload, but did not recognize his
accomplishments and contributions to the team.
At the conclusion of the investigation, complainant received a copy
of the investigative report and requested a hearing before an EEOC
Administrative Judge (AJ). After concluding that there were no genuine
issues of material fact, the AJ issued a decision without a hearing,
finding no discrimination.
The agency's final order fully implemented the AJ's decision. On appeal,
complainant contends, among other things, that her supervisor failed to
tell the truth during the official EEO investigation. The agency did
not file a response.
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 a decision without a hearing only upon a determination
that the record has been adequately developed for summary disposition.
The AJ concluded that other than complainant's own subjective belief
that he was discriminated against, he presented no evidence from which
a reasonable fact-finder could conclude that the agency discriminated
against him on the basis of sex or subjected him to a hostile work
environment. The AJ thus determined that a hearing was not required
because there were no genuine issues of material fact in dispute.
The Commission agrees with the FAD's conclusion that complainant did
not establish that he was discriminated against on the basis of sex.
Specifically, the record evidence does not establish that complainant
was treated less favorably than individuals similarly situated, but
not within his protected group. Moreover, there is no other probative
evidence from which such an inference of discrimination can be drawn.
Under the standards set forth in Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 510
U.S. 17 (1993), complainant's claim of hostile work environment must fail.
See Enforcement Guidance on Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc. at 3, 6
(March 8, 1994). A prima facie case of hostile work environment is
precluded based on our finding that complainant failed to establish
that any of the actions taken by the agency were motivated by his sex.
See Oakley v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01982923
(September 21, 2000).
Based on the foregoing, and after a review of the record in its entirety,
including consideration of all statements submitted on appeal, it is
the decision of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to affirm
the agency's final order, because the Administrative Judge's issuance
of a decision without a hearing was appropriate and a preponderance of
the record evidence does not establish that discrimination occurred.
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 26, 2005
__________________
Date