Complainant,v.Debbie Matz, Chairman, National Credit Union Administration, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Mar 6, 2014

0120130667 (E.E.O.C. Mar. 6, 2014)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013

,
Complainant,

v.

Debbie Matz,
Chairman,
National Credit Union Administration,
Agency.

Appeal No. 0120130667

Agency No. 12-04

DECISION
On November 27, 2012, Complainant filed an appeal from the Agency’s October 22, 2012,
final decision concerning his equal employment opportunity (EEO) complaint alleging
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

. For the following reasons, the Commission AFFIRMS
the Agency’s final decision finding no discrimination.

BACKGROUND
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a Credit Union
Examiner at the Agency’s facility in Williamsport, Pennsylvania. On January 3, 2012,
Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging that the Agency discriminated against him and
subjected him to a hostile work environment on the basis of his sex (male) when:

1. His supervisor (S1) held his performance to a higher standard than other
probationary employees;
2. S1 provided negative comments about Complainant’s work performance in his
training reports and instructed his on-the-job trainers to do the same;
3. Management purposefully distorted and falsified his work record in order to show
that he was a poor performer; and
4. On November 14, 2011, he was terminated from his position during his
probationary period.

At the conclusion of the investigation, the Agency provided Complainant with a copy of the
report of investigation and notice of his right to request a hearing before an EEOC
Administrative Judge (AJ). In accordance with Complainant’s request, the Agency issued a
final decision pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.110(b). The decision concluded that Complainant
0120130667

2
failed to prove that the Agency subjected him to discrimination as alleged. On appeal,
Complainant reiterates his contentions that he was subjected to unlawful sex discrimination,
and that the statements of management officials are not worthy of belief.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
As this is an appeal from a decision issued without a hearing, pursuant to 29 C.F.R.
§ 1614.110(b), the Agency's decision is subject to de novo review by the Commission. 29
C.F.R. § 1614.405(a). See Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive for 29
C.F.R. Part 1614

, at Chapter 9, § VI.A. (November 9, 1999) (explaining that the de novo
standard of review “requires that the Commission examine the record without regard to the
factual and legal determinations of the previous decision maker,” and that EEOC “review the
documents, statements, and testimony f record, including any timely and relevant submissions
of the parties, and . . . issue its decision based on the Commission’s own assessment of the
record and its interpretation of the law”).
To prevail in a disparate treatment claim, Complainant must satisfy the three-part evidentiary
scheme fashioned by the Supreme Court in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792
(1973). Complainant must initially establish a prima facie case by demonstrating that he was
subjected to an adverse employment action under circumstances that would support an
inference of discrimination. Furnco Construction Co. v. Waters, 438 U.S. 567, 576 (1978).
Proof of a prima facie case will vary depending on the facts of the particular case. McDonnell
Douglas, 411 U.S. at 804 n. 14. The burden then shifts to the Agency to articulate a
legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for its actions. Texas Department of Community Affairs
v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 253 (1981). To ultimately prevail, Complainant must prove, by a
preponderance of the evidence, that the Agency’s explanation is pretextual. Reeves v.
Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc

., 530 U.S. 133 (2000).
Here, we find that assuming, arguendo, Complainant established a prima facie case of sex
discrimination, the Agency nonetheless articulated legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons for its
actions. Specifically, the record shows that on July 17, 2011, Complainant was hired as a
Credit Union Examiner, with a one year probationary period, and that he was in training status
until his termination on November 14, 2011. During Complainant’s employment he was
provided with a training report every two weeks, which detailed his progress and assessed his
performance according to standards set out for all new employees by the office of training and
development. These reports contained feedback from S1 as well as Complainant’s on-the-job
trainers. A review of the record shows that from the start of his training, management reported
that Complainant had difficulty completing tasks in a timely fashion, could not access materials
or navigate the necessary software, and failed to follow directions or ask for assistance when
needed. The record shows that all of the management officials and on-the-job trainers who
worked with Complainant stated that his work quality was poor, and that he struggled to learn
even the basic requirements of the position. As such, the record shows that management
terminated his employment for failure to meet the requirements of his position. Despite
Complainant’s contentions, we find that he has proffered no evidence, beyond his mere
0120130667

3
assertions, to support his claims. Accordingly, we find that he failed to show that the Agency’s
articulated reasons for its actions were a pretext for unlawful sex discrimination.

Finally, insofar as Complainant contends that the incidents alleged constitute harassment based
upon his sex, the Commission finds that since he failed to refute the legitimate,
nondiscriminatory reasons proffered by the Agency for its actions, he also failed to establish
that such actions were taken on the basis of his membership in the protected class.
Accordingly, Complainant failed to establish that he was subjected to a discriminatory hostile
work environment. See Bennett v. Department of the Navy

, EEOC Request No. 05980746
(September 19, 2000).

CONCLUSION
Based on a thorough review of the record we AFFIRM the Agency’s final order finding no
discrimination.

STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION

(M0610)
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), at 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 77960, Washington, DC 20013. 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).
0120130667

4

COMPLAINANT’S RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION

(S0610)
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

(Z0610)
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 from the Court that the Court appoint an attorney to represent you
and that the Court also 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
with the Court 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

Date
March 6, 2014