Earl P. Thompson, Complainant,v.Dirk Kempthorne, Secretary, Department of the Interior Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionSep 24, 2008
0120083348 (E.E.O.C. Sep. 24, 2008)

0120083348

09-24-2008

Earl P. Thompson, Complainant, v. Dirk Kempthorne, Secretary, Department of the Interior Agency.


Earl P. Thompson,

Complainant,

v.

Dirk Kempthorne,

Secretary,

Department of the Interior

Agency.

Appeal No. 0120083348

Agency No. MMS070211

Hearing No. 461-2008-00016X

DECISION

Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405, the Commission accepts complainant's

appeal from the agency's June 17, 2008 final order concerning his equal

employment opportunity (EEO) complaint claiming 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., 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.

Complainant worked as a Civil Engineering Technician, GS-8, Gulf of Mexico

Region of the Mineral Management Service, in New Orleans, Louisiana.

Complainant claimed that the agency discriminated against him on the

bases of race (African-American), sex (male), disability (stress),

age (56), and in reprisal for prior protected activity when he was not

selected for the position of Land Law Examiner, GS-9, Adjudication Unit,

on January 25, 2007, in favor of an African-American female (CO).1

Following an investigation, complainant requested a hearing before an EEOC

Administrative Judge (AJ). On May 22, 2008, the AJ issued a decision

without a hearing, finding that the agency did not discriminate against

complainant.

The AJ concluded that the agency articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory

reasons for its actions. The selecting official (SO), the head of

the Adjudication Unit, stated that he assumed all candidates on the

Certificate were qualified and interviewed each one. He chose CO,

who worked in mineral leasing, for the GS-9 position as she was able to

answer his questions concerning the job's duties. According to the SO,

however, complainant was not able to give responses to his questions

about the duties of the position, because he performed work that was

very different than the position at issue. Complainant contended that

he was more qualified but provided nothing in support of his assertion.

Thus, assuming, arguendo, that complainant established a prima facie

case of discrimination on any of the bases alleged, complainant did not

demonstrate pretext in response to the agency's explanation.

The standard of review in rendering this appellate decision is de novo,

i.e., the Commission will examine the record and 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. See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405(a); EEOC Management Directive 110,

Chapter 9, � VI.A. (November 9, 1999).

Initially, we consider whether the AJ properly issued a decision without a

hearing on this record. The Commission's regulations allow an AJ to issue

a decision without a hearing when s/he finds that there are no genuine

issues of material fact. 29 C.F.R. � 1614.109(g). This regulation

is patterned after the summary judgment procedure in the Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure, Rule 56, and 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). The AJ may properly issue a decision

without 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. 0120024206 (July 11, 2003).

After a review of the record in its entirety and consideration of

all statements submitted on appeal, it is the decision of the Equal

Employment Opportunity Commission to affirm the agency's final decision,

because the AJ's issuance of a decision without a hearing was appropriate,

and the preponderance of the evidence of record does not establish that

discrimination occurred.2

The agency's final order implementing the AJ's finding of no

discrimination is affirmed.

STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL

RECONSIDERATION (M0408)

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 (S0408)

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 (Z0408)

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

__09/24/2008________________

Date

1 The agency filled the position with a selectee at the GS-9 level and

GS-11 level, but the AJ determined that complainant, a GS-8 employee,

was eligible for the position at the GS-9 level only.

2 We assume, without finding, for the purposes of analysis only, that

complainant is an individual with a disability as alleged.

??

??

??

??

4

0120083348

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

Office of Federal Operations

P. O. Box 19848

Washington, D.C. 20036