Larry Thompson, Complainant,v.Dr. James B. Peake, Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionSep 5, 2008
0120070799 (E.E.O.C. Sep. 5, 2008)

0120070799

09-05-2008

Larry Thompson, Complainant, v. Dr. James B. Peake, Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs, Agency.


Larry Thompson,

Complainant,

v.

Dr. James B. Peake,

Secretary,

Department of Veterans Affairs,

Agency.

Appeal No. 0120070799

Hearing No. 480-2006-00040X

Agency No. 200N-0691-2004102665

DECISION

Complainant filed an appeal from the agency's final action dated October

16, 2006, finding no discrimination with regard to his complaint.

The record indicates that complainant filed his complaint dated June 17,

2004, which was later clarified, alleging discrimination based on sex

(male) and in reprisal for prior EEO activity when: (1) on one occasion he

was ordered to provide nighttime monitoring of patients; (2) on another

occasion he was ordered not to come in contact with the same patients;

and (3) he was not promoted to the position of Social Worker allegedly

based on lack of specialized training, which the evidence, unspecified,

showed he had.

Upon completion of the investigation of the complaint, complainant

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

September 18, 2006, the AJ issued a decision without holding a hearing,

finding no discrimination. The agency's final action implemented the

AJ's decision.

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, 322-23 (1986); Oliver v. Digital

Equip. Corp., 846 F.2D 103, 105 (1st Cir. 1988). A fact is "material"

if it has the potential to affect the outcome of the case.

The Commission finds that grant of summary judgment was appropriate,

as no genuine dispute of material fact exists. In this case, the AJ

determined that, assuming arguendo that complainant had established a

prima facie case of discrimination, the agency articulated legitimate,

nondiscriminatory reasons for the alleged actions. At the relevant time,

complainant was a Social Services Assistant, GS-6/Step 5, at the agency's

Greater Los Angeles Healthcare systems in the Geriatric Domiciliary.

The agency stated that complainant held this position from January 16,

2000, until his removal on August 8, 2005. It is noted that this removal

is not a live issue in this case.

With regard to claims (1) and (2), the agency stated that on February

18, 2004, complainant was accused of patient abuse after he placed his

hand on the knee of a patient. During the investigation of this matter,

complainant was temporarily reassigned other duties and sent to another

work area in order to protect both complainant and the accuser pursuant to

the agency's policy. The agency indicated that reassignment to another

unit was routine in the case of an allegation of patient abuse during

an investigation.

With regard to claim (3), the agency stated that complainant was not

qualified for the Social Worker position because he did not meet the

one year at the GS-7 level by the closing date of the announcement.

Specifically, the agency stated that in May of 2004, complainant

was a GS-6/5 and, thus, did not qualify for the position. The AJ

stated that despite complainant's arguments that he should not have

been disqualified on the lack of specialized experience, complainant,

nevertheless, failed to establish that his qualifications were plainly

superior to the selectees.

Upon review, the Commission agrees with the agency that complainant

failed to rebut the agency's legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for

the alleged actions. There is no evidence in the record to show that

the agency's actions were motivated by any discrimination.

Accordingly, the agency's final action 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

9/5/08

__________________

Date

2

0120070799

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

Office of Federal Operations

P. O. Box 19848

Washington, D.C. 20036