0120140841
07-08-2016
Elvis G.,1 Complainant, v. Robert McDonald, Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs, Agency.
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Elvis G.,1
Complainant,
v.
Robert McDonald,
Secretary,
Department of Veterans Affairs,
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120140841
Hearing No. 450-2013-00008X
Agency No. 2003-0763-2011103279
DECISION
Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405, the Commission accepts Complainant's appeal from the Agency's November 20, 2013 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.
BACKGROUND
During the period at issue, Complainant worked as a Pharmacist at the Agency's Consolidated Mail Outpatient Pharmacy (CMOP)-Dallas facility in Lancaster, Texas.
On August 8, 2011, Complainant filed the instant formal complaint. Therein, Complainant alleged that he was subjected to harassment and a hostile work environment on the bases of race (African-American), national origin (Nigerian), sex (male), disability), age (over 40), and in reprisal for prior EEO activity when:
1. on or about March 23, 2011, a supervisor threatened him with the police and a suspension;
2. on April 14, 2011, he was issued an admonishment;
3. on May 2, 2011, he was issued a proposed reprimand which was subsequently issued on May 18, 2011;
4. on March 26, 2012, he was issued a notification of unacceptable performance; and
5. on May 7, 2012, he was issued a proposed suspension which was subsequently issued on June 18, 2012.2
After an investigation of the remanded claims, the Agency provided Complainant with a copy of the investigative file, and Complainant requested a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). Thereafter, the Agency filed a Motion for a Decision Without a Hearing. On November 6, 2013, the AJ issued a decision by summary judgment in favor of the Agency.
In finding no discrimination by summary judgment, the AJ found that the record developed during the investigation established the following undisputed facts. Regarding claim 1, Complainant acknowledged using his cell phone on the production floor on March 23, 2011. Complainant stated that he was speaking to his wife because his daughter was injured at school. The Director of the COMP, also Complainant's supervisor, directed Complainant to go home after learning he used his cell phone.
The AJ noted that according to the Agency's COMP policy memorandum regarding Personal Electronic Devices, Section 4(a), it states "use of mobile phones to include wireless earphone (Bluetooth), text messaging and personal pagers, is strictly prohibited on the production floor. They may be accessed only during scheduled breaks. Disciplinary action will be taken for unauthorized use of mobile phones and pagers."
Regarding claim 2, the Associate Director of COMP, also Complainant's supervisor (Supervisor 2), stated that on April 14, 2011, he issued Complainant an admonishment because he had a drink without a lid while on the production floor, used his cell phone on the production floor, and used the internet on the Manual Pharmacy Verifier Station computer. In the admonishment letter, Supervisor 2 stated that Complainant was admonished based on the following factors: (1) violation of food and drink policy, (2) violation of the personnel electronic devices policy, and (3) violation of the limited use of government property equipment, including information technology.
Further, the AJ noted while Complainant acknowledged drinking soda while on the production floor and using the internet on the Manual Pharmacy Verifier Station computer, he does not recall using his cell phone. Complainant, however, acknowledged there were three complaints against him for using his cell phone on the production floor.
Regarding claim 3, the AJ noted that on May 2, 2011, Complainant was issued a proposed reprimand for using another employee's Certified Pharmacy Technician identification card to unlock his computer which Complainant acknowledged doing so. The proposed reprimand was sustained on May 18, 2011.
Regarding claim 4, Complainant was issued a notification of unacceptable behavior on March 26, 2011, and was subsequently placed on a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) which he acknowledged he "wasn't producing enough work." The supervisor stated after being placed on the PIP, Complainant successfully completed the program and has been successfully performing at an acceptable level ever since.
Regarding claim 5, Complainant was issued a proposed suspension on May 7, 2012, which was subsequently issued on June 18, 2012, for using his cell phone on the production floor on April 24, 2012 in violation of Agency policy. The supervisor stated that he reviewed the video for the day in question which clearly showed Complainant using his cell phone on the production floor.
The Agency fully implemented the AJ's decision in its final order. The instant appeal followed. Complainant makes no new contentions on appeal.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
A claim of disparate treatment is examined under the three-party analysis first enunciated in McDonnell Douglas Corporation v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). For complainant to prevail, she must first establish a prima facie 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. See 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. See Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 253 (1981). Once the agency has met its burden, the complainant bears the ultimate responsibility to persuade the fact finder by a preponderance of the evidence that the agency acted on the basis of a prohibited reason. See St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (1993).
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.
We find that the AJ's findings of fact are supported by the substantial evidence in the record and that the AJ's decision properly summarized the relevant facts and referenced the appropriate regulations, policies, and laws. The undisputed facts fully support the AJ's determination that the responsible management officials clearly articulated legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for its actions. After careful review of the record, as well as the arguments presented on appeal, we conclude that Complainant failed to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that these proffered reasons were a pretext designed to mask discrimination on any basis alleged.
The Agency's final order implementing the AJ's decision without a hearing, finding no discrimination, is AFFIRMED.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0416)
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), at Chap. 9 � VII.B (Aug. 5, 2015). All requests and arguments must be submitted to the Director, Office of Federal Operations, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The requests may be submitted via regular mail to P.O. Box 77960, Washington, DC 20013, or by certified mail to 131 M Street, NE, Washington, DC 20507. 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 (S0610)
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 (Z0815)
If you want to file a civil action but cannot pay the fees, costs, or security to do so, you may request permission from the court to proceed with the civil action without paying these fees or costs. Similarly, if you cannot afford an attorney to represent you in the civil action, you may request the court to appoint an attorney for you. You must submit the requests for waiver of court costs or appointment of an attorney directly to the court, not the Commission. The court has the sole discretion to grant or deny these types of requests. Such requests do not alter the time limits for filing a civil action (please read the paragraph titled Complainant's Right to File a Civil Action for the specific time limits).
FOR THE COMMISSION:
______________________________ Carlton M. Hadden's signature
Carlton M. Hadden, Director
Office of Federal Operations
July 8, 2016
__________________
Date
1 This case has been randomly assigned a pseudonym which will replace Complainant's name when the decision is published to non-parties and the Commission's website.
2 The record reflects that on September 22, 2011, the Agency issued a final decision dismissing the instant formal complaint on the grounds that it was untimely filed. On appeal, the Commission reversed the Agency's dismissal and remanded the matter to the Agency for further processing. [Complainant] v. Department of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Appeal No. 0120120456 (March 13, 2012). Following the Commission's decision, the Agency processed the remanded claims in accordance with 29 C.F.R. � 1614.108, which is now the subject of the instant appeal.
---------------
------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
------------------------------------------------------------
2
0120140841
2
0120140841
7
0120140841