Martin L. Scruggs, Complainant,v.Gordon R. England, Secretary, Department of the Navy, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionNov 23, 2004
01A44816_r (E.E.O.C. Nov. 23, 2004)

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.