0120070039
01-14-2009
Patricia A. Biggers, Complainant, v. Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner, Social Security Administration, Agency.
Patricia A. Biggers,
Complainant,
v.
Michael J. Astrue,
Commissioner,
Social Security Administration,
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120070039
Agency No. 040065SSA
Hearing No. 120200500203x
DECISION
Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405, the Commission accepts complainant's
appeal from the agency's August 28, 2006, final order concerning her 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.
Complainant alleged that the agency discriminated against her on
the basis of national origin (Hispanic) when she was reassigned from
the position of Director, Regional Office of Quality Assurance and
Performance Assessment, Boston, MA, GS-15 (Boston), to the position of
Director, Division of Disability Program Quality, Office of Disability
Program Quality, Baltimore, MD, GS-15 (Baltimore), in September 2003.
Following an investigation, complainant requested a hearing before
an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). On June 22 and 23, 2005, the AJ
conducted a hearing, and, on August 1, 2006, he issued a decision,
finding that the agency did not discriminate against complainant.1
The agency, through the Deputy Commissioner for Facilities, Assessment
and Management, explained that the Baltimore incumbent informed her
managers that she intended to retire. Because complainant had previous
experience in the agency's disability process, he believed she was best
positioned and appointed her through a lateral transfer to work with the
incumbent until she retired. In this way, he considered that complainant
would learn the job requirements and become acquainted with the staff to
ensure a smooth transition.2 In response, complainant contended that no
position existed, since the incumbent remained.3 However, notwithstanding
the incumbent's delayed retirement, complainant has not shown that the
agency's reasons were pretext for discrimination. The AJ concluded
that the agency articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for
its actions and that complainant did not demonstrate pretext.
Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405(a), all post-hearing factual findings by
an AJ will be upheld if supported by substantial evidence in the record.
Substantial evidence is defined as "such relevant evidence as a reasonable
mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Universal
Camera Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board, 340 U.S. 474, 477 (1951)
(citation omitted). A finding regarding whether or not discriminatory
intent existed is a factual finding. See Pullman-Standard Co. v. Swint,
456 U.S. 273, 293 (1982). An AJ's conclusions of law are subject to a
de novo standard of review, whether or not a hearing was held. We find
that the decision of the AJ accurately stated the facts and correctly
applied the pertinent principles of law.
After a review of the record in its entirety and consideration of
all statements submitted on appeal, including those not specifically
addressed, it is the decision of the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission to affirm the agency's final decision, because the AJ's
ultimate finding, that unlawful employment discrimination was not proven
by a preponderance of the evidence, is supported by the record.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the agency's decision is affirmed.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0408)
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 (S0408)
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 (Z1008)
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
__01/14/2009______
Date
1 On June 6, 2005, the AJ granted summary judgment as to complainant's
claim in regard to her performance appraisal, and complainant has not
addressed this matter further.
2 The Deputy stated that a management review in Boston was not part of
his decision to transfer complainant.
3 Complainant also asserted that her transfer was an "adverse action,"
since the Baltimore position was less prestigious; that she was entitled
to compensatory damages; and that the AJ should have used "C.F.R. 753
regulations." None of these arguments demonstrate pretext, in that, the
analysis of claims claiming disparate treatment is patterned after the
three-step scheme announced in McDonnell Douglas Corporation v. Green,
411 U.S. 792 (1973). Once the complainant has established a prima facie
case, the agency is required to articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory
reason for its actions; to prevail, complainant must demonstrate, by a
preponderance of the evidence, that the agency's reason(s) for its action
was a pretext for discrimination, i.e., that the agency's reason was not
its real reason and that it acted on the basis of discriminatory animus.
See Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 253
(1981); St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (1993).
??
??
??
??
2
0120070039
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P. O. Box 19848
Washington, D.C. 20036
4
0120070039