01a20907
03-20-2003
Karin Hockett, Complainant, v. Dr. James G. Roche, Secretary, Department of the Air Force, Agency.
Karin Hockett v. Department of the Air Force
01A20907
03-20-03
.
Karin Hockett,
Complainant,
v.
Dr. James G. Roche,
Secretary,
Department of the Air Force,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A20907
Agency No. 6WOB99051
Hearing No. 320-A0-8270X
DECISION
Karin Hockett (hereinafter referred to as complainant) filed a timely
appeal from the November 19, 2001, final decision of the Department
of the Air Force (hereinafter referred to as the agency) concerning a
complaint of unlawful employment discrimination in violation of Title VII
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. � 2000e et seq.
The appeal is timely filed (see 29 C.F.R. � 1614.402(a)) and is accepted
in accordance with 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405.
Complainant claimed discrimination based on sex and reprisal for
prior EEO activity when she was not referred for selection for the
position of Contract Specialist in July 1999. After an investigation,
complainant requested a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ).
On October 9, 2001, the AJ issued a decision without a hearing finding
no discrimination, and the agency agreed to implement that decision.
Complainant has filed the instant appeal, without comment. The agency's
comments support the AJ's decision.
Because of a RIF action, in January 1999, complainant was reassigned
from a GS-10 position to the position of supervisory contract monitor,
GS-1601-08. In June 1999, the agency generated a roster to fill a
contract specialist position, GS-1102-7/9. The initial roster was
generated by a computer search and identified 95 individuals, including
complainant, as possible candidates who met the basic job qualifications.
However, when a more refined list was prepared, complainant was not among
the 14-15 employees whose names were forwarded to the selecting officials
(one male, one female) (SOs). The SOs chose a male from among the final
roster of candidates. The agency explained that complainant was not
available for selection and could not be listed on the final roster,
because she had not completed a change-to-lower-grade form (CLG), which
was a pre-requisite for her selection.
The AJ found that complainant established a prima facie case based on
sex but not reprisal, since the SOs were not aware of her prior EEO
activity. Complainant contended that the manager of the contract unit
was aware of her prior activity; however, that manager was not part
of the selection process. The AJ found that the agency articulated
a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason to explain why complainant was
among those on the final roster for selection.
In rebuttal, complainant did not address the agency's reason for
its action. Instead, to demonstrate pretext, complainant pointed to
the agency's action with regard to E1 (male), whose position had been
upgraded to GS-1102-9 and was given training to qualify him for the
upgraded position. The AJ noted that complainant had not raised this
matter in her complaint and that, because E1 was reassigned and trained
prior to complainant's January 1999 reassignment, she was not similarly
situated to him. Further, the AJ observed that the agency's actions
regarding E1 excluded all other employees, both male and female.
After a review of the record, including statements and arguments not
addressed herein, we find that the Administrative Judge's issuance of
a decision without a hearing was appropriate and the
preponderance of the evidence of record does not establish that
discrimination occurred.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the agency's decision was proper and is AFFIRMED.
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
____03-20-03______________
Date