Darnell J. Edmondson, Complainant,v.Mel R. Martinez, Secretary, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionDec 4, 2001
01993969 (E.E.O.C. Dec. 4, 2001)

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