0120121626
08-07-2012
Michael M. McDonough, Complainant, v. Tom J. Vilsack, Secretary, Department of Agriculture (Animal and Plant Health Inspection Services), Agency.
Michael M. McDonough,
Complainant,
v.
Tom J. Vilsack,
Secretary,
Department of Agriculture
(Animal and Plant Health Inspection Services),
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120121626
Agency No. APHIS201100393
DECISION
Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405, the Commission accepts Complainant's appeal from the Agency's January 25, 2012 final decision concerning his 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 was an applicant for the position of Information Technology Project Manager in the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), Marketing and Regulatory Programs Division in Riverdale, Maryland. On April 5, 2011, Complainant filed a formal complaint alleging that the Agency discriminated against him on the bases of race (Caucasian), sex (male), and age (60) when: on January 26, 2011, he was notified that he was not selected for the position of Project Manager, GS-14/15, advertised under Vacancy Announcement Number 6MR-2010-0130.
At the conclusion of the investigation, Complainant was provided with a copy of the report of investigation and notice of his 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, on August 6, 2010, a merit promotion certificate was issued, which included Complainant's name. A panel reviewed and scored 25 applications and forwarded the top five applicants for an interview. Complainant was one of the five applicants recommended for an interview. An interview panel conducted interviews and compiled a matrix which listed the strengths and weaknesses of each candidate. According to the matrix, the panel selected S-1 as the top candidate, S-2 was ranked second, and Complainant was ranked third. The interview panel acknowledged Complainant's public and private sector experience, but determined that Complainant was weak on his ability to get a team on board with an unpopular change. Similarly, one panel member noted that Complainant either failed to answer certain questions or did not demonstrate the experience that some questions were seeking. Therefore, S-1 was the only candidate the interview panel recommended for the position.1
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). He must generally establish a prima facie case by demonstrating that he 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 conjectures and challenges the credibility of Agency witnesses in this matter. However, beyond his 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
August 7, 2012
__________________
Date
1 The record reflects that the Agency ultimately canceled and re-advertised the position at issue. However, Complainant elected to not reapply.
---------------
------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
------------------------------------------------------------
2
0120121626
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
2
0120121626