Cynthia K. Dowling, Complainant,v.R.L. Brownlee, Acting Secretary, Department of the Army, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionMay 16, 2005
01a51152 (E.E.O.C. May. 16, 2005)

01a51152

05-16-2005

Cynthia K. Dowling, Complainant, v. R.L. Brownlee, Acting Secretary, Department of the Army, Agency.


Cynthia K. Dowling v. Department of the Army

01A51152

May 16, 2005

.

Cynthia K. Dowling,

Complainant,

v.

R.L. Brownlee,

Acting Secretary,

Department of the Army,

Agency.

Appeal No. 01A51152

Agency No. ARHOOD02DEC0004

Hearing No. 310-2004-00272X

DECISION

Complainant initiated an appeal from the agency's final order concerning

her 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, a WAC Paramedic at the agency's

Darnall Army Community Hospital facility, filed an EEO complaint on

March 7, 2003, alleging that the agency had discriminated against her

on the bases of race (Caucasian), sex (female), and reprisal for prior

EEO activity when:

Complainant was subjected to a hostile work environment when she

was removed from federal service on November 8, 2002, during her

probationary period.

At the conclusion of the investigation, complainant received a copy of the

investigative report and requested a hearing before an EEOC Administrative

Judge (AJ). Following a hearing, the AJ issued a decision finding no

discrimination, which was implemented by the agency in its final action.

Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405(a), all post-hearing factual findings by

an AJ will be upheld if supported by substantial evidence in the record.

Substantial evidence is defined as �such relevant evidence as a reasonable

mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.� Universal

Camera Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board, 340 U.S. 474, 477 (1951)

(citation omitted). A finding regarding whether or not discriminatory

intent existed is a factual finding. See Pullman-Standard Co. v. Swint,

456 U.S. 273, 293 (1982). An AJ's conclusions of law are subject to a

de novo standard of review, whether or not a hearing was held.

The AJ determined that, assuming arguendo that complainant had established

a prima facie case of discrimination, the agency articulated legitimate,

nondiscriminatory reasons for the alleged removal. Initially, the AJ

noted that during the relevant time period, complainant was employed

intermittently on an on-call basis. Specifically, complainant's

supervisor testified that complainant was removed due to the incident

on June 14, 2002, when, despite her instruction, complainant refused

to go on the ambulance run to transfer a pediatric patient to Wilford

Hall in San Antonio. The supervisor also testified that complainant

became upset with her and left her work without permission and did not

return for the remainder of her shift on that day. The Chief Paramedic

testified that she knew of no other paramedic who walked off the job and

was not disciplined. The Chief of the Department of Emergency Medicine

testified that although complainant was a competent paramedic, he could

not condone her actions on June 14, 2002. He also testified that he was

not aware of any other situation where an employee had walked off the job.

The AJ noted that although complainant testified that her supervisor

was jealous of her, it was not discrimination. The AJ determined that

complainant failed to show that the agency's foregoing reasons were a

pretext for discrimination.

After a review of the record in its entirety, including consideration

of all statements submitted on appeal, the agency's final action is

hereby AFFIRMED because 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 16, 2005

__________________

Date