Janelle M. Perry, Complainant,v.Dr. Donald C. Winter, Secretary, Department of the Navy, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionNov 20, 2007
0120073706 (E.E.O.C. Nov. 20, 2007)

0120073706

11-20-2007

Janelle M. Perry, Complainant, v. Dr. Donald C. Winter, Secretary, Department of the Navy, Agency.


Janelle M. Perry,

Complainant,

v.

Dr. Donald C. Winter,

Secretary,

Department of the Navy,

Agency.

Appeal No. 0120073706

Agency No. 05-DJJNDU-002

Hearing No. 531-2006-00004X

DECISION

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

appeal from the agency's July 31, 2007 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.

During the period at issue, complainant was employed as a Food Service

Worker (Flexible), NA-7408-04, at the agency's Morale, Welfare and

Recreation (MWR) Department, Pub 1, National Defense University, Joint

Forces Staff College, in Norfolk, Virginia.

On April 15, 2005, complainant filed the instant formal complaint.

Therein, complainant claimed that the agency discriminated against her

on the bases of race (African-American) and in reprisal for prior EEO

activity when:

effective March 1, 2005, she was terminated from her Food Service Worker

(Flexible) position.

The record reflects that during the relevant time, the Command

conducted an investigation of its MWR Department, including Pub 1,

following the results of a command climate survey conducted at the

direction of the Commanding Official. The findings of the investigation

revealed numerous systematic improprieties; and violations of government

regulations and standards. Complainant was required to participate in

the investigation by answering questions posed by the investigator.

After taking twenty-three statements from witnesses the investigator

found that four witnesses, including complainant, were untruthful in

their statements. Complainant was given an opportunity to amend her

statement but declined. The record reflects that based on the results

of the Command investigation, five employees, including complainant,

were terminated.

On June 18, 2007, an Administrative Judge (AJ) issued a decision without a

hearing, finding no discrimination. The AJ found that complainant failed

to establish a prima facie case of race discrimination because she failed

to identify a similarly situated individual who was treated differently

under similar circumstances. Regarding the basis of reprisal, the AJ

found no nexus between the alleged adverse action and prior protected

activity. Moreover, the AJ found that a review of the record reflects

that complainant was not meeting the legitimate expectations of the

agency in which she provided a false statement and engaged in some of

the violations referred to by the investigator.

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, 322-323 (1986); Oliver v. Digital

Equipment Corporation, 846 F.2d 103, 105 (1st Cir. 1988). A fact is

"material" if it has the potential to affect the outcome of a case.

If a case can only be resolved by weighing conflicting evidence, summary

judgment is not appropriate. In the context of an administrative

proceeding, an AJ may properly consider summary judgment only upon a

determination that the record has been adequately developed for summary

disposition.

After a review of the record, it is the decision of the Equal Employment

Opportunity Commission to AFFIRM the agency's final order, because

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

and a preponderance of the record evidence does not establish that

discrimination occurred.

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

November 20, 2007

__________________

Date

2

0120073706

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

Office of Federal Operations

P. O. Box 19848

Washington, D.C. 20036

4

0120073706

5

0120073706