0120084018
06-10-2011
Louella D. Moreno, Complainant, v. Ben S. Bernanke, Chairman, Federal Reserve System, Agency.
Louella D. Moreno,
Complainant,
v.
Ben S. Bernanke,
Chairman,
Federal Reserve System,
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120084018
Hearing No. 570-2007-00531X
Agency No. FRB-EEO-06-09-003
DECISION
Complainant filed an appeal from an Agency’s final order dated August
28, 2008, finding no discrimination with regard to her complaint.
29 C.F.R. § 1614.405(a). For the following reasons, we AFFIRM the
Agency’s final order.
BACKGROUND
In her complaint, dated September 26, 2006, Complainant, a Project
Manager, FR-28, Surveillance, Financial Trends, & Analysis (SFTA),
at the Agency’s Division of Banking, Supervision & Regulation (BS&R),
alleged discrimination based on sex (female), age (over 40), and reprisal
for prior protected EEO activity, when, on July 19, 2006, she was not
selected for the position of Manager, SFTA, BS&R. The record indicates
that at the conclusion of the investigation, Complainant requested a
hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). On July 23, 2008,
the AJ, after a hearing, issued a decision finding no discrimination,
which was implemented by the Agency in its final order.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
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
nonselection. A Selecting Official (SO), who was Complainant’s first
level supervisor at the time of the incident, stated that he selected a
selectee, which was concurred/approved by his upper level senior officers,
because he had good analytical skills from his programming experience,
strong IT project management skills from his work on the PRISM and SR-SABR
systems, and very good interpersonal skills from his own observations
and managing IT teams. The SO indicated that while Complainant had
very strong analytical and writing skills, her IT project management
skills were not as strong as those of the selectee. Specifically, the
SO stated that based on his knowledge of Complainant’s interpersonal
skills and the problems caused by her management style of the “Top
50” project (analysis of the financial condition of the top 50 bank
holding companies), he did not have faith that Complainant could handle
the personnel issues. The SO stated that Complainant’s management
style of the “Top 50” project caused conflicts between programmers
and analysts within SFTA and in other divisions. The SO’s selection
decision was concurred and approved by his senior officers who indicated
that they also would have had a problem if Complainant was selected for
the position at issue since they were also aware of her interpersonal
problems with her management of the Top 50 project.
The AJ determined that the Agency articulated legitimate,
nondiscriminatory reasons for its selection decision. The AJ also
determined that Complainant failed to show by a preponderance of
the evidence that the Agency’s proffered reasons were pretextual.
Specifically, the AJ stated that the SO and his senior officers were
credible witnesses when they testified at the hearing. Upon review,
we find that the AJ’s factual findings of no discriminatory intent
are supported by substantial evidence in the record.
CONCLUSION
After a review of the record in its entirety, including consideration
of all statements submitted on appeal, the Agency’s final order is
AFFIRMED because the AJ’s decision is supported by substantial evidence.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0610)
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), at 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
77960, Washington, DC 20013. 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 (S0610)
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 (Z0610)
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 from the Court that
the Court appoint an attorney to represent you and that the Court also
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 with
the Court 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
6/10/11
__________________
Date
2
0120084018
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
4
0120084018