01A44816_r
11-23-2004
Martin L. Scruggs, Complainant, v. Gordon R. England, Secretary, Department of the Navy, Agency.
Martin L. Scruggs v. Department of the Navy
01A44816
November 23, 2004
.
Martin L. Scruggs,
Complainant,
v.
Gordon R. England,
Secretary,
Department of the Navy,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A44816
Agency No. DON 03-69224-002
Hearing No. 380-2004-00075X
DECISION
After receiving the June 28, 2004 decision of an EEOC Administrative
Judge (AJ) finding no discrimination, complainant submitted a premature
appeal to the Commission on July 13, 2004. Thereafter, on July 24,
2004, the agency issued its decision, implementing the AJ's decision.
Because the premature appeal was pending at the time the agency issued
its decision, the Commission deems the appeal as timely filed.
Complainant alleged that he was discriminated against on the bases
of race (Black) and sex (male) when in October 2002, the agency's
Southeast Human Resources Service Center (HRSC-SE) did not place
complainant on the certificate of eligibles (COE) as an Education
Services Specialist, GS-1740-11 for the Naval Recruiting District
(NRD) in Seattle, Washington. At the conclusion of the investigation,
complainant received a copy of the investigative report and requested
a hearing before an AJ. The agency requested summary judgment in a
June 7, 2004 motion and complainant submitted a statement, dated June
16, 2004.<1> The AJ issued a decision without a hearing, finding no
discrimination. The AJ concluded that although complainant established
a prima facie case of race and sex discrimination, the agency had
articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions.
The AJ found that complainant had provided no evidence that the person
responsible for compiling the COE was aware of complainant's race or sex.
The AJ also found that complainant was not placed on the COE because the
resumes that he submitted failed to indicate that he possessed the key
skills required for the position. The AJ also found that complainant had
failed to show that the agency official failed to act in good faith in
her assessment of the qualifications listed by complainant on his resume.
The AJ noted that even if complainant's qualifications were misjudged,
such evidence would not preclude a finding of no discrimination because
the relevant inquiry is whether the agency honestly believed the reasons
it proffered for its actions and acted in good faith on those beliefs.
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.
The Commission finds that the 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. There is
no evidence that the person responsible for compiling the COE was aware
of complainant's race or sex.
The agency's finding of 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
November 23, 2004
__________________
Date
1The statement does not address the agency's
motion.