0120064777
03-25-2008
Daniel P. Carr, Complainant, v. Michael Chertoff, Secretary, Department of Homeland Security, Agency.
Daniel P. Carr,
Complainant,
v.
Michael Chertoff,
Secretary,
Department of Homeland Security,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01200647771
Hearing No. 110-A6-0073X
Agency No. HS05TSA01838
DECISION
On August 16, 2006, complainant filed an appeal from the agency's July
28, 2006, final order 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., Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Rehabilitation
Act), as amended, 29 U.S.C. � 791 et seq., and the Age Discrimination
in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), as amended, 29 U.S.C. � 621 et seq.
The appeal is deemed timely and is accepted pursuant to 29 C.F.R. �
1614.405(a). For the following reasons, the Commission AFFIRMS the
agency's final order.
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, complainant was
employed as a Transportation Security Screener, SV-0019-D, at the
Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport in Atlanta, Georgia.2 On
June 10, 2005, complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging that he was
discriminated against on the bases of race (Caucasian), disability,
and age (D.O.B. 11/26/60) when, on February 1, 2005, his employment was
terminated.
At the conclusion of the investigation, complainant was provided with a
copy of the report of investigation and notice of his right to request
a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). Complainant timely
requested a hearing. When complainant did not object, the AJ assigned to
the case granted the agency's February 16, 2006 motion for a decision
without a hearing and issued a decision without a hearing on April
12, 2006.
In her decision, the AJ found that complainant did not show that he
is disabled pursuant to the Rehabilitation Act, and that he did not
otherwise establish a prima facie case of discrimination on any of the
alleged bases. The AJ noted that complainant was unable to identify a
similarly-situated individual, not in his protected class, who was treated
more favorably under similar circumstances. The AJ found no evidence that
any of complainant's co-workers had anything comparable to complainant's
four DUI convictions, an Article 15 while in the military for driving a
tow truck in a reckless manner while intoxicated, plus another conviction
for leaving the scene of an accident in 2002. The AJ then assumed
arguendo that complainant had established a prima facie case and found
that the agency articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for
its action. Specifically, following a background investigation, the
agency's credentialing office determined that complainant's record of
convictions for operating vehicles while intoxicated and leaving the scene
of an accident on one occasion deemed him not suitable for employment.
The AJ found no evidence of discrimination. The agency subsequently
issued a final order adopting the AJ's finding that complainant failed
to prove that he was subjected to discrimination as alleged.
Complainant makes no new arguments on appeal but asserts that he was
treated disparately because the agency's background check went back
more than 10 years. The agency requests that we affirm the final order.
In rendering this appellate decision we must scrutinize the AJ's legal and
factual conclusions, and the agency's final order adopting them, de novo.
See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405(a) (stating that a "decision on an appeal from
an agency's final action shall be based on a de novo review . . .");
see also EEOC Management Directive 110, Chapter 9, � VI.B. (November 9,
1999). (providing that an administrative judge's "decision to issue a
decision without a hearing pursuant to [29 C.F.R. � 1614.109(g)] will be
reviewed de novo"). This essentially means that we should look at this
case with fresh eyes. In other words, we are free to accept (if accurate)
or reject (if erroneous) the AJ's, and agency's, factual conclusions and
legal analysis - including on the ultimate fact of whether intentional
discrimination occurred, and on the legal issue of whether any federal
employment discrimination statute was violated. See id. at Chapter 9,
� VI.A. (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 of 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").
We must determine whether it was appropriate for the AJ to have
issued a decision without a hearing on this record. 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, issuing
a decision without holding a hearing is not appropriate. In the context
of an administrative proceeding, an AJ may properly consider issuing a
decision without holding a hearing only upon a determination that the
record has been adequately developed for summary disposition. See Petty
v. Department of Defense, EEOC Appeal No. 01A24206 (July 11, 2003).
Finally, an AJ should not rule in favor of one party without holding
a hearing unless he or she ensures that the party opposing the ruling
is given (1) ample notice of the proposal to issue a decision without
a hearing, (2) a comprehensive statement of the allegedly undisputed
material facts, (3) the opportunity to respond to such a statement, and
(4) the chance to engage in discovery before responding, if necessary.
According to the Supreme Court, Rule 56 itself precludes summary
judgment "where the [party opposing summary judgment] has not had the
opportunity to discover information that is essential to his opposition."
Anderson, 477 U.S. at 250. In the hearing context, this means that the
administrative judge must enable the parties to engage in the amount of
discovery necessary to properly respond to any motion for a decision
without a hearing. Cf. 29 C.F.R. � 1614.109(g)(2) (suggesting that
an administrative judge could order discovery, if necessary, after
receiving an opposition to a motion for a decision without a hearing).
In this instance, the AJ properly issued a decision without a hearing.
In analyzing a disparate treatment claim under Title VII, the ADEA and
the Rehabilitation Act, where the agency denies that its decisions were
motivated by complainant's disability and there is no direct evidence of
discrimination, we apply the burden-shifting method of proof set forth
in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). See Heyman
v. Queens Village Comm. for Mental Health for Jamaica Cmty. Adolescent
Program, 198 F.3d 68 (2d Cir. 1999); Swanks v. WMATA, 179 F.3d 929,
933-34 (D.C.Cir. 1999). Under this analysis, in order to establish
a prima facie case, complainant must demonstrate that: (1) he is an
"individual with a disability"; (2) he is "qualified" for the position
held or desired; (3) he was subjected to an adverse employment action;
and (4) the circumstances surrounding the adverse action give rise to an
inference of discrimination. Lawson v. CSX Transp., Inc., 245 F.3d 916
(7th Cir. 2001). The burden of production then shifts to the agency
to articulate a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the adverse
employment action. In order to satisfy his burden of proof, complainant
must then demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the agency's
proffered reason is a pretext for disability discrimination. Id.
Assuming complainant was disabled pursuant to the Rehabilitation Act
at the relevant time, and that he otherwise established a prima facie
case of discrimination on the alleged bases, the agency has articulated
legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions. This record
contains no persuasive evidence that the agency officials responsible
for complainant's background check or termination, were motivated by
discriminatory animus as opposed to the proffered reasons.
After a careful review of the record, the Commission finds that the
AJ's decision without a hearing was appropriate, as no genuine issue
of material fact is in dispute.3 See Petty v. Department of Defense,
EEOC Appeal No. 01A24206 (July 11, 2003). Therefore, we AFFIRM the
agency's final order.
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
March 25, 2008
__________________
Date
1 Due to a new data system, this case has been re-designated with the
above referenced appeal number.
2 Complainant was hired on April 4, 2004, subject to the successful
completion of a background investigation and a one-year probationary
period.
3 In this case, we find that the record was adequately developed for
the AJ to issue a decision without a hearing.
??
??
??
??
2
0120064777
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P. O. Box 19848
Washington, D.C. 20036