0120113766
01-10-2012
Magdalena Camacho, Complainant, v. Ray H. LaHood, Secretary, Department of Transportation (Federal Aviation Administration), Agency.
Magdalena Camacho,
Complainant,
v.
Ray H. LaHood,
Secretary,
Department of Transportation
(Federal Aviation Administration),
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120113766
Agency No. 201123744FAA06
DECISION
Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.405, the Commission accepts Complainant’s
appeal from the Agency’s final decision concerning her equal employment
opportunity (EEO) complaint alleging 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 (ADEA), as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq.
BACKGROUND
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked
as a Management Assistant, FV-0344-E, at the Agency’s Western-Pacific
Region, Flight Standards Division Office (FSDO) in Sacramento, California.
On February 18, 2011, Complainant filed a formal complaint alleging
that the Agency discriminated against her on the bases of race (Pacific
Islander), national origin (Chamorro), color (Brown), and age (45)
when: on December 28, 2010, she learned that she was not selected for
the position of Administrative Officer (AO), FV-0341-F/G, advertised
under Vacancy Announcement Number AWP-FS-11-BMN1669-19053.
At the conclusion of the investigation, Complainant was provided with a
copy of the report of investigation and notice of her right to request
a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge. Complainant requested
a final decision pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.110(b).
In its final decision, the Agency found no discrimination. The Agency
determined that, even if Complainant could establish a prima facie
case, management had recited legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons
for Complainant's non-selection. Specifically, the Selecting Official
stated that the selection was based on qualifications, work experience,
work performance and interview results. One member from the interview
panel stated that Complainant was ranked by each individual interviewer,
and she received an average score considerably lower than the Selectee,
based solely on her responses to questions asked during the interview.
Another panel member stated that Complainant did not do very well
during the interview. He maintained that the Selectee's answers were
clear and well thought out. He stated that the Selectee did very well
in the interview. Still another panel member stated that Complainant
was not the best qualified candidate. She asserted that she could not
pinpoint a specific reason why, other than the fact that Complainant came
to the interview with the attitude that she should have the job because
she was working with the current AO. She further asserted that the
Selectee was best qualified for the position because of her background,
her attitude and willingness to learn the job. Finally, the Selectee
displayed better budget experience and a better knowledge of the position.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
As this is an appeal from a decision issued without a hearing, pursuant
to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.110(b), the agency's decision is subject to de novo
review by the Commission. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.405(a). See EEOC Management
Directive 110, Chapter 9, § VI.A. (November 9, 1999). (explaining that
the de novo standard of review “requires that the Commission examine
the record without regard to the factual and legal determinations of
the previous decision maker,” and that EEOC “review the documents,
statements, and testimony of record, including any timely and relevant
submissions of the parties, and . . . issue its decision based on the
Commission’s own assessment of the record and its interpretation of
the law”).
To prevail in a disparate treatment claim such as this, Complainant
must satisfy the three-part evidentiary scheme fashioned by the Supreme
Court in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). She
must generally establish a prima facie case by demonstrating that
she was subjected to an adverse employment action under circumstances
that would support an inference of discrimination. Furnco Construction
Co. v. Waters, 438 U.S. 567, 576 (1978). The prima facie inquiry may be
dispensed with in this case, however, since the agency has articulated
legitimate and nondiscriminatory reasons for its conduct. See United
States Postal Service Board of Governors v. Aikens, 460 U.S. 711,
713-17 (1983); Holley v. Department of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Request
No. 05950842 (November 13, 1997). To ultimately prevail, complainant
must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the agency’s
explanation is a pretext for discrimination. Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing
Products, Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 120 S.Ct. 2097 (2000); St. Mary's Honor
Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 519 (1993); Texas Department of Community
Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 256 (1981); Holley v. Department of
Veterans Affairs, EEOC Request No. 05950842 (November 13, 1997); Pavelka
v. Department of the Navy, EEOC Request No. 05950351 (December 14, 1995).
On appeal, Complainant mainly challenges the credibility of Agency
witnesses in this matter. However, beyond her bare assertions,
Complainant has not produced evidence to show that the Agency’s
explanations are a pretext for discrimination.
After a review of the record in its entirety, including consideration
of all statements submitted on appeal, it is the decision of the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission to AFFIRM the Agency’s final decision
because the preponderance of the evidence of record does not establish
that discrimination occurred.
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
January 10, 2012
__________________
Date
2
0120113766
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
2
0120113766