Marie Wilson, Complainant,v.Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Commissioner, Social Security Administration, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionMar 9, 2005
01a46142 (E.E.O.C. Mar. 9, 2005)

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