01a46142
03-09-2005
Marie Wilson, Complainant, v. Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Commissioner, Social Security Administration, Agency.
Marie Wilson v. Social Security Administration
01A46142
March 9, 2005
.
Marie Wilson,
Complainant,
v.
Jo Anne B. Barnhart,
Commissioner,
Social Security Administration,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A46142
Agency No. 03-0160-SSA
Hearing No. 160-2004-00062X
DECISION
Complainant timely initiated an appeal from the agency's final order
concerning her equal employment opportunity (EEO) complaint of unlawful
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. For the
following reasons, the Commission AFFIRMS the agency's final order.
The record reveals that complainant, a Social Insurance Specialist
(Bilingual) (hereinafter referred to as Claim Representative) at the
agency's Roslindale, Massachusetts, Field Office facility, filed a formal
EEO complaint on January 27, 2003, alleging that the agency discriminated
against her on the bases of race (Haitian American), national origin
(Haitian American), and color (black) when she did not receive an
award for fiscal year 2002. At the conclusion of the investigation,
complainant received a copy of the investigative report and requested a
hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). On July 15, 2004, the
AJ issued a decision without a hearing, finding that there was no genuine
issue of material fact in dispute, and concluded that complainant had not
been discriminated against. Specifically, the AJ found that the agency
presented a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for why complainant did
not receive an award, which complainant failed to rebut. The agency, on
August 18, 2004, issued a decision fully implementing the AJ's decision.
Complainant now appeals from that 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. If a case can
only be resolved by weighing conflicting evidence, summary judgment is
not appropriate. In the context of an administrative proceeding, an AJ
may properly consider summary judgment only upon a determination that
the record has been adequately developed for summary disposition.
We find that the agency has articulated legitimate nondiscriminatory
reasons for its actions. The District Manager, who is complainant's
first line supervisor, stated that when considering whether to issue
complainant an award, he requested input from the Management Support
Specialist, who was complainant's assigned mentor. The District Manager
also reviewed the Social Security Administration Central Office's
general guidance on awards, and the general criteria of the Memorandum
of Understanding between the Boston Region and the American Federation
of Government Employee Local 1164 regarding bargaining unit awards,
as well as the AFGE contract provisions governing awards. The District
Manager stated that he considered complainant's multi-lingual interviewing
and translation responsibilities, however, he believed the quality and
quantity of her work was barely adequate. Specifically, the District
Manager stated that complainant's unit was disorganized and poorly
controlled, that she had problems forwarding medical information to the
Disability Determination Service (DDS) on a timely basis, and that she
rarely submitted bi-weekly status reports on problem cases pending in
her unit. The District Manager also found that complainant failed to
resolve edits and rejects on a timely basis, and failed to follow-up on
cases requiring additional proof or necessary actions in a timely manner.
The Management Support Specialist stated that complainant was disorganized
and that some claims were pending for an excessive amount of time.
The Management Support Specialist stated that she received complaints
from claimants whose claims were pending in complainant's unit for an
excessive period of time. Moreover, the Management Support Specialist
stated that complainant had many initial claims waiting to be sent to
DDS that were pending for as long as a month, and the normal expectation
was that cases be sent to DDS within 24 hours of receipt.
The Commission finds that complainant failed to prove that discriminatory
motivation was the reason for her not receiving an award. According to
the agency, complainant was barely adequate in performing her basic
job duties. Complainant fails to persuasively argue why she deserved
the award, and therefore also fails to show that the reasons proffered
by the agency were a pretext for discrimination.
After a careful review of the record, the Commission finds that grant
of summary judgment was appropriate, as no genuine dispute of material
fact exists. We find that the AJ's decision properly summarized the
relevant facts and referenced the appropriate regulations, policies,
and laws. Further, construing the evidence to be most favorable to
complainant, we note that complainant failed to present evidence that
any of the agency's actions were motivated by discriminatory animus
toward complainant's protected classes.
The agency's decision finding no discrimination 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
March 9, 2005
__________________
Date