[Redacted], Charlie K., 1 Complainant,v.Marcia L. Fudge, Secretary, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Sep 27, 2022

Appeal No. 2021004274 (E.E.O.C. Sep. 27, 2022)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Charlie K.,1 Complainant, v. Marcia L. Fudge, Secretary, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Agency. Appeal No. 2021004274 Hearing No. 570-2020-01378X Agency No. HS-HUD-00512-2020 DECISION On July 22, 2021, Complainant filed an appeal, pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.403(a), from the Agency’s June 24, 2021 final order 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. BACKGROUND At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as an EEO Specialist, GS-0260-13, at the Agency’s Office of Departmental Equal Employment Opportunity in Fort Worth, Texas. On January 9, 2020, Complainant filed a formal complaint alleging that the Agency discriminated against him on the bases of race (African-American), sex (male), and in reprisal for prior protected activity when he learned he received a lower performance rating than his peers outside of his protected class sometime in November 2019. 1 This case has been randomly assigned a pseudonym which will replace Complainant’s name when the decision is published to non-parties and the Commission’s website. 2021004274 2 Complainant received a rating of “Excellent” for his Fiscal Year (FY) 2019 Performance Review. The FY19 Performance Review included five distinct performance elements: (1) Collaboration, (2) EEO Complaint Processing/Management, (3) EEO Counseling/Coordination, (4) Personal Investment, and (5) Special Projects/Miscellaneous Assignments. Employees received ratings for each element, as well as an overall rating, based on a five-level rating system, including: Level 1 (Unacceptable/Unsatisfactory), Level 2 (Marginally/Minimally Successful), Level 3 (Fully Successful), Level 4 (Excellent/Exceeds Fully Successful), and Level 5 (Outstanding), and “N/R” for a Non-Rating. Complainant received an overall rating of “Excellent” with the following element ratings: “Outstanding” for EEO Counseling/Coordination; “Excellent” for Collaboration, EEO Processing/Management, and Personal Investment; and “Fully Successful” for Special Projects/Miscellaneous Assignments. After its investigation into the complaint, the Agency provided Complainant with a copy of the report of investigation and notice of right to request a hearing before an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) Administrative Judge (AJ). Complainant timely requested a hearing. The AJ assigned to the matter issued a summary judgment decision in favor of the Agency. In the decision, the AJ determined that the Agency had articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions. Specifically, Complainant’s first-level supervisor (S1), Director, Equal Employment Opportunity Division, explained that while Complainant’s performance was excellent, he did not demonstrate specific accomplishments that warranted a higher rating. His work required corrections more frequently and he did not incorporate updates to office templates when compared to his peers. Furthermore, Complainant was the only employee whose activity report reflected delinquent investigations more than 360 days old. This was noted in Complainant’s FY19 Performance Review under the element for EEO Complaint Processing/Management, for which Complainant was rated “Excellent.” Two of Complainant’s peers received overall ratings of “Outstanding” because they worked independently, were adamant about meeting processing timeframes for cases, and their work product required little to no changes. S1 explained they received higher ratings because they took initiative and volunteered to address special tasks to advance the mission; provided feedback and examples for templates to support efforts of uniformity in the complaint process; and volunteered to manage a portion of the EEO process in addition to their regular job duties. The AJ concluded Complainant failed to show that the Agency’s reasons for its actions were pretextual. As a result, the AJ found Complainant was not subjected to discrimination or reprisal as alleged. The Agency issued a final order fully adopting the AJ’s decision. The instant appeal followed. 2021004274 3 CONTENTIONS ON APPEAL On appeal, Complainant, argues, amongst other things, that the AJ erred in granting summary judgment in favor of the Agency as material facts remain in dispute. Additionally, Complainant raised several arguments regarding the AJ’s handling of the case, including failing to consolidate his complaint with his other pending complaints and denying him the opportunity to conduct discovery. Accordingly, Complainant requests that the Commission reverse the final order. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS As an initial matter, the Commission notes that EEOC regulations and Commission precedent provide AJs with broad discretion in the conduct of a hearing and related proceedings. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.109; see also Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive 110 for 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 (EEO MD-110), at Ch. 7 (Aug. 5, 2015). The Commission has reviewed all documentary evidence in the record and is unable to find evidence of bias, or other reversible error, resulting from the manner in which the AJ managed and adjudicated this case. The Commission's regulations allow an AJ to grant summary judgment when he or she finds that there is no genuine issue of material fact. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.109(g). 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. In rendering this appellate decision we must scrutinize the AJ’s legal and factual conclusions, and the Agency’s final order adopting them, de novo. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.405(a)(stating that a “decision on an appeal from an Agency’s final action shall be based on a de novo review…”); see also Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive for 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 (EEO-MD-110), at Chap. 9, § VI.B. (as revised, August 5, 2015)(providing that an administrative judge’s determination to issue a decision without a hearing, and the decision itself, will both be reviewed de novo). In order to successfully oppose a decision by summary judgment, a complainant must identify, with specificity, facts in dispute either within the record or by producing further supporting evidence, and must further establish that such facts are material under applicable law. Such a dispute would indicate that a hearing is necessary to produce evidence to support a finding that the agency was motivated by discriminatory or retaliatory animus. Here, however, Complainant has failed to establish such a dispute. Even construing any inferences raised by the undisputed facts in favor of Complainant, a reasonable fact-finder could not find in Complainant’s favor. Complainant has not presented evidence sufficient showing the Agency was motivated by unlawful discriminatory or retaliatory animus regarding any of the allegations at issue. 2021004274 4 Upon careful review of the AJ’s decision and the evidence of record, as well as the parties’ arguments on appeal, we conclude that the AJ correctly determined that the preponderance of the evidence did not establish that Complainant was subjected to discrimination or reprisal as alleged. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the Agency’s final order adopting the AJ’s decision. STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL RECONSIDERATION (M0920) The Commission may, in its discretion, reconsider this appellate decision if Complainant or the Agency submits a written request that contains arguments or evidence that 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 for reconsideration must be filed with EEOC’s Office of Federal Operations (OFO) within thirty (30) calendar days of receipt of this decision. If the party requesting reconsideration elects to file a statement or brief in support of the request, that statement or brief must be filed together with the request for reconsideration. A party shall have twenty (20) calendar days from receipt of another party’s request for reconsideration within which to submit a brief or statement in opposition. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.405; Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive for 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 (EEO MD-110), at Chap. 9 § VII.B (Aug. 5, 2015). Complainant should submit his or her request for reconsideration, and any statement or brief in support of his or her request, via the EEOC Public Portal, which can be found at https://publicportal.eeoc.gov/Portal/Login.aspx. Alternatively, Complainant can submit his or her request and arguments to the Director, Office of Federal Operations, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, via regular mail addressed to P.O. Box 77960, Washington, DC 20013, or by certified mail addressed to 131 M Street, NE, Washington, DC 20507. In the absence of a legible postmark, a complainant’s request to reconsider shall be deemed timely filed if OFO receives it by mail within five days of the expiration of the applicable filing period. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.604. An agency’s request for reconsideration must be submitted in digital format via the EEOC’s Federal Sector EEO Portal (FedSEP). See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.403(g). Either party’s request and/or statement or brief in opposition must also include proof of service on the other party, unless Complainant files his or her request via the EEOC Public Portal, in which case no proof of service is required. Failure to file within the 30-day time period will result in dismissal of the party’s request for reconsideration as untimely, unless extenuating circumstances prevented the timely filing of the request. 2021004274 5 Any supporting documentation must be submitted together with the 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 (Z0815) If you want to file a civil action but cannot pay the fees, costs, or security to do so, you may request permission from the court to proceed with the civil action without paying these fees or costs. Similarly, if you cannot afford an attorney to represent you in the civil action, you may request the court to appoint an attorney for you. You must submit the requests for waiver of court costs or appointment of an attorney directly to the court, not the Commission. The court has the sole discretion to grant or deny these types of requests. Such requests do not alter the time limits for filing a civil action (please read the paragraph titled Complainant’s Right to File a Civil Action for the specific time limits). FOR THE COMMISSION: ______________________________ Carlton M. Hadden’s signature Carlton M. Hadden, Director Office of Federal Operations September 27, 2022 Date