John W. Laude, Complainant,v.Ann M. Veneman, Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionMar 23, 2001
01986882 (E.E.O.C. Mar. 23, 2001)

01986882

03-23-2001

John W. Laude, Complainant, v. Ann M. Veneman, Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Agency.


John W. Laude v. Department of Agriculture

01986882

March 23, 2001

.

John W. Laude,

Complainant,

v.

Ann M. Veneman,

Secretary,

Department of Agriculture,

Agency.

Appeal No. 01986882

Agency No. 941101

DECISION

Complainant timely initiated an appeal from the agency's final decision

concerning his equal employment opportunity (EEO) complaint of 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. and the

Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, as amended, 29 U.S.C. �

621 et seq. The appeal is accepted pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405.

Complainant alleges he was discriminated against on the bases of age

(DOB April 14, 1938) and reprisal (contacting an EEO counselor on July

13, 1993) when he was forced to resign on September 3, 1994, because of

sexual harassment charges filed against him by female co-workers. For the

following reasons, the Commission affirms the agency's final decision.

Complainant was a GM-13 Program Review Officer at the agency's Food and

Safety Inspection Service, Lawrence, Kansas. His supervisor (Supervisor)

informed him on July 1, 1993, that a co-worker (Co-worker) alleged

that during the past year he made sexual advances to her, groped her,

and then retaliated when she refused his advances by belittling her

work and criticizing her in front of others, and spreading rumors that

she was sexually involved with the Program Review Director (Director).

The Supervisor informed complainant that an investigation would ensue,

but he could avoid the investigation by either retiring or transferring

to Denver, Colorado. Complainant refused.

The record indicates that during the next few days, other female

co-workers came forward with allegations that complainant sexually

harassed or made advances to them. Complainant then contacted an

EEO counselor on July 13, 1993. Following the investigation into the

allegations of sexual harassment, the agency determined that there was

sufficient evidence to sustain the allegations. Complainant was told

that he would receive discipline in the form of a one week suspension

which would remain permanently on his record, or that he could either

transfer or retire.

Complainant opted to retire on September 3, 1994. He filed a formal

complaint on November 1, 1994, claiming constructive discharge because of

discrimination based on age and reprisal <1> He contended that he had not

sexually harassed anyone, and that the Director and others at the agency

were conspiring against him because he was rumored to have made sexual

advances to the Director's wife. Complainant also raised allegations

of misconduct by the Director, Deputy Director and others in his office,

including abuse of leave, questionable promotions and misuse of training

funds. These allegations were referred to the Employee Relations Branch

of the Personnel Division. The agency reports that an investigation into

the allegations was conducted between August 1995, and February 1996.

At the conclusion of the investigation into complainant's complaint,

he requested a final decision. The agency issued a decision finding no

discrimination. The agency found that complainant failed to establish

a prima facie case of age discrimination because he failed to show that

he was treated less favorably than employees not of his protected group.

The agency also noted that there was no evidence of discriminatory animus

in the agency's actions. The agency further found that complainant

failed to establish a prima facie case based on reprisal because the

actions that led to complainant's resignation were initiated prior to

his July 13, 1993 counselor contact. The agency noted that, assuming

arguendo that complainant established a prima facie case on either basis,

it articulated legitimate reasons for its actions, namely that numerous

witnesses corroborated the allegations of sexual misconduct and sexual

harassment upon which the agency had a legal obligation to act, and

that the proposed discipline and resignation in lieu of adverse action

adhered to agency policy.

On appeal, complainant reiterates arguments that he did not sexually

harass anyone, and that the charges against him were fabricated because

the Director was angry with him and jealous that women, including the

Director's wife, were attracted to him.

FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS

In the absence of direct evidence of discrimination, the allocation of

burdens and order of presentation of proof in a Title VII case alleging

discrimination is a three-step process. Complainant has the initial burden

of establishing a prima facie case of discrimination. If complainant

meets this burden, the burden shifts to the agency to articulate

some legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its challenged action.

Complainant must then prove, by a preponderance of the evidence,

that the legitimate reason articulated by the agency was a pretext for

discrimination. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). In

an ADEA case, the ultimate burden remains on appellant to demonstrate,

by a preponderance of the evidence, that age was a determinative factor.

Loeb v. Textron, 600 F. 2d 1003 (1st Cir. 1979); Fodale v. Department of

Health and Human Services, EEOC Request No. 05960344 (October 16, 1998).

This established order of analysis, in which the first step normally

consists of determining the existence of a prima facie case, need not

be followed in all cases. Where the agency articulates a legitimate,

nondiscriminatory reason for the actions at issue, the factual inquiry can

proceed directly to the third step of the McDonnell Douglas analysis,

that is, the ultimate issue of whether complainant has shown by a

preponderance of the evidence that the agency's actions were motivated

by discrimination. Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine,

450 U.S. 248, 253 (1981); see also U.S. Postal Service Board of Governors

v. Aikens, 460 U.S. 711, 713-714 (1983).

The Commission finds that the agency articulated legitimate,

nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions and find no evidence that

the Director or Deputy Director acted with discriminatory animus

toward complainant because of his age. The record indicates that the

Co-worker brought allegations of sexual misconduct and harassment against

complainant. The record also indicates that complainant was previously

counseled on two occasions by the Supervisor for inappropriate sexual

behavior, including an incident with another co-worker during a meeting

attended by visitors. The Supervisor had reason to believe the Co-worker,

and notified complainant of his options prior to the investigation.

When other female employees came forward with similar allegations,

the Supervisor and Director initiated an investigation as warranted.

In order to establish a prima facie case of discrimination for an

allegation of reprisal, complainant must show: 1) that he engaged in

protected activity, e.g., participated in a Title VII proceeding; 2)

that the alleged discriminating official was aware of the protected

activity; 3) that he was disadvantaged by an action of the agency

contemporaneously with or subsequent to such participation; and 4)

that there is a causal connection between the protected activity and

the adverse employment action. Hochstadt v. Worcester Foundation for

Experimental Biology, Inc., 425 F. Supp. 318, 324 (D. Mass), affirmed,

545 F. 2d 222 (1st Cir. 1976); see also Mitchell v. Baldridge, 759 F. 2d

80, 86 (D.C. Cir. 1985); Burrus v. United Telephone Co. of Kansas, Inc.,

683 F.2d 339, 343 (10th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1071 (1982).

The record indicates that complainant engaged in protected activity

when he contacted an EEO counselor on July 13, 1993. We find that

complainant fails to establish a prima facie case of reprisal because

the actions that led to his forced retirement preceded his EEO counselor

contact. The Co-worker contacted the Supervisor about her allegations

of complainant's misconduct in June 1993. The Supervisor notified

complainant of the charges and his options on July 1, 1993. Even assuming

that complainant established a prima facie case, the agency articulated

legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for initiating an investigation

into the allegations that complainant sexually harassed female co-workers,

and in taking action against him when the investigation substantiated

those claims.

CONCLUSION

After a careful review of the record, including complainant's contentions

on appeal, the agency's response, and arguments and evidence not

specifically addressed in this decision, we AFFIRM the agency's final

decision.

STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL

RECONSIDERATION (M0900)

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

March 23, 2001

__________________

Date

1 There is no indication that complainant appealed his retirement or

constructive discharge to the Merit System Protection Board.