Jill Martin, Complainant,v.Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner, Social Security Administration, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionMay 8, 2008
0120070994 (E.E.O.C. May. 8, 2008)

0120070994

05-08-2008

Jill Martin, Complainant, v. Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner, Social Security Administration, Agency.


Jill Martin,

Complainant,

v.

Michael J. Astrue,

Commissioner,

Social Security Administration,

Agency.

Appeal No. 0120070994

Agency No. 051826SSA

Hearing No. 410200600160x

DECISION

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

appeal from the decision of the Administrative Judge in regard to

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.1

At the time of the events herein, complainant was a Human Resources

Specialist (HRS), GS-12, in the agency's Atlanta, Georgia, office.

She claimed discrimination based on race (African-American) and sex

(female) when she was not selected for the position of HRS, GS-13, in

July 2005, in favor of a Caucasian male (ES). Following an investigation,

complainant requested a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ).

The AJ conducted a hearing on September 20, 2006, and issued a decision

dated September 27, 2006 (mailed on September 28, 2006), finding that

the agency did not discriminate against complainant.2

Initially, the AJ reviewed the application process and the consideration

of the four candidates by the selecting official, the Director of

Human Resources (SO). In her decision, the AJ found that the agency,

through the SO, articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its

selection decision and that complainant failed to demonstrate pretext.

The SO stated that she selected ES because of her subordinate's

recommendation, her personal knowledge and review of the applications

of the candidates, discussions with her supervisors, ES's academic

accomplishments and selection to the agency's Outstanding Scholar Program,

and his demonstrated abilities to initiate and prioritize his workload,

leadership skills, and analytical proficiencies. The SO stated that

she did not select complainant because she is not a team player, missed

numerous meetings, had poor communication skills, and her subordinate

did not recommend her. The AJ concluded that, although complainant

argued that her seniority should have been a factor or that her skills

were plainly superior, the complainant failed to show that the reasons

provided were pretextual.

Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405(a), all post-hearing factual findings

by an AJ will be upheld if supported by substantial evidence in the

record. Substantial evidence is defined as "such relevant evidence as

a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion."

Universal Camera Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board, 340 U.S. 474,

477 (1951) (citation omitted). A finding regarding whether or not

discriminatory intent existed is a factual finding. See Pullman-Standard

Co. v. Swint, 456 U.S. 273, 293 (1982). An AJ's conclusions of law

are subject to a de novo standard of review, whether or not a hearing

was held. After review of the record in this matter, we find that the

decision of the AJ accurately stated the facts and correctly applied

the pertinent principles of law.3

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

all statements submitted on appeal, including those not specifically

addressed, it is the decision of the Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission to affirm the agency's final decision, because the AJ's

ultimate finding, that unlawful employment discrimination was not proven

by a preponderance of the evidence, is supported by the record.

Accordingly, the agency's decision 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

___05-08-2008_______________

Date

1 The agency did not issue a final order, and the AJ's decision became

final after 40 days. We find that complainant's appeal was timely filed.

See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.109(i).

2 Complainant's complaint was consolidated for hearing and decision with

two other applicants; those complainants did not file appeals from the

AJ's decision.

3 In the case of a nonselection, the Commission utilizes the

comparative qualification standard to determine whether a selection was

discriminatory. The comparative qualifications standard provides that

"disparities in qualifications must be of such weight and significance

that no reasonable person, in the exercise of impartial judgment,

could have chosen the candidate selected over [complainant] for the

job in question." Ash v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 190 Fed. Appx. 924, 88

Empl. Prac. Dec. P 42,608 (11th Cir. 2006), cert. denied, 127 S.Ct. 1154

(Jan. 22, 2007). In the present case, there is no evidence to support

such a finding.

??

??

??

??

2

0120070994

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

Office of Federal Operations

P. O. Box 19848

Washington, D.C. 20036

4

0120070994