0120112889
10-19-2011
Gayle Brown, Complainant, v. Eric K. Shinseki, Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs, Agency.
Gayle Brown,
Complainant,
v.
Eric K. Shinseki,
Secretary,
Department of Veterans Affairs,
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120112889
Hearing No. 570-2010-00794X
Agency No. 2004-0020-2009-102-751
DECISION
Complainant filed an appeal from the Agency’s April 6, 2011 Final Order
concerning her 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. and
the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), as amended,
29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. For the following reasons, the Commission
AFFIRMS the Agency’s final order.
BACKGROUND
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked
as a Management Analyst at the Agency’s Veterans Benefit Administration
facility in Washington, DC. On August 6, 2009, Complainant filed an
EEO complaint alleging that the Agency discriminated against her on the
bases of race (African-American), sex (female), and age (49) when:
On April 24, 2009, Complainant learned that she was not selected for the
position of Supervisory Program Analyst, GS-03434-14, under announcement
number 09-20M3-VA-17.
At the conclusion of the investigation, the Agency provided Complainant
with a copy of the report of investigation and notice of her right to
request a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). Complainant
requested a hearing. Over Complainant's objections, the AJ assigned to
the case granted the Agency’s February 10, 2011, motion for a decision
without a hearing. The AJ issued his decision without a hearing on
March 11, 2011. (AJ Decision).
In his Decision, the AJ found that the record was sufficiently developed
to render a determination on the merits of Complainant’s claim and
that the material facts were not in dispute. Specifically, the AJ found
no dispute that the selecting official (SO) and another member of the
panel that conducted the interviews for the identified position, scored
the selectee higher than Complainant in every criteria. AJ Decision
at 3. The AJ found the undisputed evidence supported Complainant’s
contention that she was basically qualified for the position, but
that Complainant’s qualifications were not plainly superior to those
possessed by the selectee. Id. at 5. Accordingly, the AJ found that
Complainant did not establish that she was subjected to discrimination
on the bases of race, sex or age.
The Agency subsequently issued a Final Order adopting the AJ’s finding
that Complainant failed to prove that the Agency subjected her to
discrimination as alleged.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
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. Dep’t of Def., 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).
To prevail in a disparate treatment claim such as this, Complainant
must satisfy the three-part evidentiary scheme fashioned by the
Supreme Court in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973).
Complainant must initially establish a prima facie case by demonstrating
that he or she was subjected to an adverse employment action under
circumstances that would support an inference of discrimination. Furnco
Constr. Co. v. Waters, 438 U.S. 567, 576 (1978). Proof of a prima facie
case will vary depending on the facts of the particular case. McDonnell
Douglas, 411 U.S. at 804 n. 14. The burden then shifts to the Agency
to articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its actions.
Tex. Dep’t of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 253 (1981).
To ultimately prevail, Complainant must prove, by a preponderance of
the evidence, that the Agency’s explanation is pretextual. Reeves
v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 120 S.Ct. 2097
(2000); St. Mary's Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 519 (1993).
In nonselection cases, a complainant can establish pretext by showing that
her qualifications are “plainly superior” to those of selectee. Bauer
v. Bailor, 647 F.2d 1037, 1048 (10th Cir. 1981).
In the instant case, we note, as the AJ did, that Complainant and the
selectee were both interviewed by a three-member panel, and that all
three panel members indicated that the selectee gave a better interview
than did Complainant. See Report of Investigation, (ROI) at 00100;
00095. We find that Complainant has failed to proffer any evidence to
demonstrate that her qualifications were plainly superior to those of the
selectee. Accordingly, we decline to disturb the AJ's determination that
Complainant failed to establish she was discriminated against as alleged.
CONCLUSION
Based on a thorough review of the record and the contentions on appeal,
we AFFIRM the Agency’s Final Order finding no discrimination.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0610)
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 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
77960, Washington, DC 20013. 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 (Z0610)
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 from the Court that
the Court appoint an attorney to represent you and that the Court also
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 with
the Court 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
October 19, 2011
__________________
Date
2
0120112889
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
5
0120112889