01993969
12-04-2001
Darnell J. Edmondson, Complainant, v. Mel R. Martinez, Secretary, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Agency.
Darnell J. Edmondson v. Department of Housing and Urban Development
01993969
December 4, 2001
.
Darnell J. Edmondson,
Complainant,
v.
Mel R. Martinez,
Secretary,
Department of Housing and Urban Development,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01993969
Agency No. AT-97-12
Hearing No. 110-98-8172X
DECISION
INTRODUCTION
Complainant timely initiated this appeal to the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (the Commission) from the agency's final decision
(FAD) 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. and
Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Rehabilitation Act),
as amended, 29 U.S.C. � 791 et seq. The appeal is accepted pursuant to
29 C.F.R. � 1614.405. Complainant alleges he was discriminated against
on the bases of race (Black) and disability (hammer toe on both feet,
limited motion in lumbar spine, and limited motion in right wrist)
when he was not selected for one of two open Clerk, Office Automation,
positions with the agency. For the following reasons, the Commission
AFFIRMS the agency's FAD finding no discrimination.
BACKGROUND
The record reveals the following information pertinent to this appeal.
On October 21, 1996, complainant submitted an application for the
aforementioned internally posted vacant positions with the agency at
its Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity in Atlanta, Georgia.
Believing he was a victim of discrimination as described above,
complainant filed a formal EEO complaint with the agency. At the
conclusion of the EEO investigation into the complaint, complainant
received a copy of the investigative report and requested a hearing before
an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). However, complainant subsequently
filed a motion requesting that the AJ issue a decision without a hearing.
The AJ granted the request, and on January 13, 1999, issued her decision
finding no discrimination.
The AJ concluded that complainant established a prima facie case of
race and disability discrimination because the eventual selectees,
not in his protected classes, were selected for the clerk positions.
The AJ further concluded that the agency articulated legitimate,
nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions. The AJ found that the agency
officials responsible for complainant's nonselection had stated that
they selected the best-qualified applicants for the positions, that
the officials had reviewed the applications and made their selections
from the applications, and that the officials had outlined in detail in
their affidavits the reasons for the selections. The AJ also found that
complainant did not establish that, more likely than not, the agency's
articulated reasons were a pretext to mask unlawful discrimination.
In reaching this conclusion, the AJ found that the evidence presented
supported the agency's position that the selectees were more qualified
than complainant.
The AJ recommended a finding of no discrimination. On March 4, 1999,
the agency entered its final decision on the complaint, concurring with
the findings of the AJ. This appeal followed.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
A claim of disparate treatment based upon a complainant's race or
disability is examined under the three-part analysis first enunciated
in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). See Presley
v. United States Postal Serv., EEOC Request No. 05980656 (Sept. 20,
2001) (extending McDonnell Douglas analysis to disability claims).
For complainant to prevail, he must first establish a prima facie case
of discrimination by presenting facts that, if unexplained, reasonably
give rise to an inference of discrimination, i.e., that a prohibited
consideration was a factor in the adverse employment action. McDonnell
Douglas, 411 U.S. at 802; Furnco Construction Corp. v. Waters, 438
U.S. 567 (1978). The burden then shifts to the agency to articulate a
legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its actions. Texas Dep't of
Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 253 (1981). Once the agency
has met its burden, complainant bears the ultimate responsibility to
persuade the fact finder by a preponderance of the evidence that the
agency intentionally discriminated against him. Reeves v. Sanderson
Plumbing Products, Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 143 (2000).
Where the agency has articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory
reason for the personnel action at issue, the factual inquiry can
proceed directly to the third step of the McDonnell Douglas analysis.
Chouteau v. United States Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No. 01973853
(Mar. 10, 2000). We agree with the AJ that the agency articulated
legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for complainants' nonselection,
as mentioned above. Accordingly, we turn our attention to whether to
affirm the agency's ultimate finding of no discrimination. The EEO
investigation file contained affidavits from the two responsible agency
decisionmakers, each of which described in detail the qualifications of
the persons ultimately selected for the vacancies, and concluded that
they were superior to those of complainant. The investigation file
also contained the application materials from several of the applicants,
including complainant and the selectees. These materials supported the
agency officials' statements that the qualifications of the selectees
were superior to those of complainant.
Moreover, complainant has failed to present any evidence, beyond that
establishing his prima facie cases, that the agency discriminated against
him on the basis of his race or disability. Nor has he challenged or
otherwise rebutted the evidence presented by the agency in support of
its nondiscriminatory reasons for his nonselection.
After a careful review of the record, the Commission finds that the
AJ's decision properly summarized the relevant facts and referenced
the appropriate regulations, policies, and laws. We discern no basis
to disturb the AJ's decision. Therefore, after a careful review of the
record, including complainant's contentions on appeal, the agency's
response, and arguments and evidence not specifically addressed in this
decision, we AFFIRM the agency's FAD 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
December 4, 2001
Date