03A20093_r
10-09-2002
Joyceline G. Jackson, Petitioner, v. Gordon R. England, Secretary, Department of the Navy, Agency.
Joyceline G. Jackson v. Department of the Navy
03A20093
October 9, 2002
.
Joyceline G. Jackson,
Petitioner,
v.
Gordon R. England,
Secretary,
Department of the Navy,
Agency.
Petition No. 03A20093
MSPB No. AT-0752-01-0594-I-1
DECISION
On July 18, 2002, petitioner filed a timely petition with the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (the Commission) requesting review
of a Final Order issued by the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB)
concerning her claim of discrimination in violation of Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), as amended, 42 U.S.C. � 2000e
et seq. The MSPB found that the Department of the Navy (the agency)
had not engaged in discrimination as alleged by petitioner.
Petitioner was employed as a Voucher Examiner, GS-5 at the agency's
Personnel Support Detachment facility in Pensacola, Florida.
Petitioner alleged that she was discriminated against on the bases of
race (African-American) and sex (female) when she was removed from her
position on May 18, 2001 for engaging in disruptive and disrespectful
behavior at a training session.
On May 22, 2001, petitioner filed a mixed case appeal with the MSPB
concerning her removal. After a hearing, the Administrative Judge
(AJ) issued an Initial Decision sustaining the agency's decision to
remove petitioner. The MSPB AJ found that the agency showed that the
charged conduct occurred and that the punishment made was appropriate.
Furthermore, the MSPB AJ held that petitioner failed to show that the
agency's action was based on her race or sex. The AJ found that the
agency's penalty of removal was warranted and reasonable.
Petitioner petitioned the Board for review of the Initial Decision.
Upon review, the Board denied the petition. On July 3, 2002 the Board
issued its Final Order concluding that the petitioner failed to provide
any new, previously unavailable evidence and that the MSPB AJ made no
error of law or regulation that would affect the outcome. It is from
this Final Order that petitioner petitions the Commission for review.
EEOC Regulations provide that the Commission has jurisdiction over
mixed case appeals on which the MSPB has issued a decision that makes
determinations on allegations of discrimination. 29 C.F.R. � 1614.303
et seq. The Commission must determine whether the decision of the
MSPB with respect to the allegation of discrimination constitutes an
incorrect interpretation of any applicable law, rule, regulation or policy
directive, or is not supported by the evidence in the record as a whole.
29 C.F.R. � 1614.305(c).
Petitioner alleged that she suffered from disparate treatment based on
her race and sex. A claim of disparate treatment is examined under
the three-part analysis first enunciated in McDonnell Douglas Corp
v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). For petitioner to prevail, she must
first establish a prima facie case 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. McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 802; Furnco
Contr. Corp. v. Waters, 438 U.S. 567 (1978). The burden then shifts
to the agency to articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for
its actions. Texas Dep't of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248,
253 (1981). Once the agency has met its burden, the petitioner 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.
St. Mary's Honor Cen. v. Hicks, 529 U.S. 502 (1993).
The established order of analysis in discrimination cases, 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 has
articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the personnel
action at issue, the factual inquiry can proceed directly to the third
step of the McDonnell Douglas analysis, the ultimate issue of whether
petitioner has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the agency's
actions were motivated by discrimination. United States Postal Service
Board of Governors v. Aikens, 460 U.S. 711, 713-714 (1983); Hernandez
v. Department of Transportation, EEOC Request NO. 05900467 (June 8,
1990); Washington v. Department of the Navy, EEOC Petition No. 03900056
(May 31, 1990).
In response to petitioner's claims of race and sex discrimination,
the agency argues that it removed petitioner for her disruptive and
disrespectful behavior at a training session. The record indicates that
petitioner's conduct disrupted the training session held on January
9, 2001. The record also indicates that petitioner has received
several disciplinary actions for other incidents of insubordination
and disruptive behavior. The burden now shifts to petitioner to show
that the agency's actions were motivated by discrimination. We find
that petitioner has not submitted persuasive evidence that the agency
more likely than not was motivated by racial and/or sexual animus when
it removed her. Therefore, the Commission finds that the petitioner
failed to show that the agency's action had a discriminatory intent.
Based upon a thorough review of the record and for the foregoing reasons,
it is the decision of the Commission to CONCUR with the final decision
of the MSPB finding no discrimination. The Commission finds that the
Board's decision constitutes a correct interpretation of the laws, rules,
regulations, and policies governing this matter and is supported by the
evidence in the record as a whole.
PETITIONER'S RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (W0900)
This decision of the Commission is final, and there is no further right of
administrative appeal from the Commission's decision. You have the right
to file a civil action in an appropriate United States District Court,
based on the decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board, within
thirty (30) calendar days of 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.
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
October 9, 2002
__________________
Date