[Redacted], Colby S., 1 Complainant,v.Frank Kendall, Secretary, Department of the Air Force, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Sep 28, 2022

Appeal No. 2021004345 (E.E.O.C. Sep. 28, 2022)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Colby S.,1 Complainant, v. Frank Kendall, Secretary, Department of the Air Force, Agency. Appeal No. 2021004345 Hearing No. 451-2019-00235X Agency No. 5E0J1800877 DECISION On July 28, 2021, Complainant filed an appeal with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission), pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.403(a), from the Agency’s June 28, 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. For the following reasons, the Commission AFFIRMS the Agency’s final order. BACKGROUND At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as an Aircraft Ordnance Technician, WG-6652-10/4, at the Agency’s 47th Flying Training Wing (47MXME), Laughlin Air Force Base (AFB) in Texas. On December 18, 2018, Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging that the Agency discriminated against him on the bases of race (African-American), color (Black), and in reprisal for prior protected EEO activity when, on August 31, 2018, Complainant became aware that he was not selected for the position of Aircraft Ordnance System Mechanic Leader. 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. 2021004345 2 Complainant worked as an Aircraft Ordnance Technician. His first-line supervisor was the Egress Branch Supervisor (S1). His second-line supervisor was the Component Maintenance Superintendent (S2). His third-line supervisor was the Component Maintenance Division Chief (S3). Investigative File (IF) at 65. S3 was the approving (selecting) official for this matter. IF at 105; 179-180. Complainant primarily named S2 as the management official primarily responsible for the alleged discrimination. He averred that he was retaliated against for filing another EEO complaint a year before. Complainant applied for a higher-level position under Announcement Number 102811784- 283043. Five applicants, including Complainant were found qualified. After reviewing the candidates’ resumes, a panel of three members unanimously ranked the selectee as the highest ranked candidate. Complainant was ranked second. IF at 103. One of the panel members did not submit affidavit testimony. Complainant averred that he believed his qualifications were superior, but he provided no evidence of his superior qualifications. IF at 159. Instead, Complainant contended that the selectee had not completed his “7 level CDC training.” The Agency determined that the selectee had completed the prerequisite training. IF at 180. The record shows that S1 recommended the selectee and S2 approved the selection in the absence of S3. IF at 172-173. S2 was not a panel member and played no role other than to approve the panel’s top choice. IF at 106. S3 averred that he believed Complainant provided false information on his resume, which was another reason for the non-selection. IF at 181. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Agency provided Complainant with a copy of the report of investigation and notice of his right to request a hearing before a United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Administrative Judge (AJ). Complainant timely requested a hearing. The AJ assigned to the case granted the Agency’s motion and issued a summary judgment decision. In the decision, the AJ determined that the Agency had articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for not selecting Complainant. Specifically, the three-member panel unanimously selected the selectee. Officials stated that the selectee’s resume was more detailed and contained accurate information related to the position at issue. By contrast, Agency officials stated that there were numerous inaccuracies contained within Complainant’s resume. For example, Complainant claimed that he completed work that was impossible to be completed at Laughlin Air Force Base. The AJ concluded that Complainant failed to show that his qualifications were plainly superior to the selectee’s or that the Agency’s reasons were pretextual. As a result, the AJ found that 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. 2021004345 3 ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS 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. Even construing any inferences raised by the undisputed facts in favor of Complainant, a reasonable fact-finder could not find in Complainant’s favor. 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 discriminated against by the Agency 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. 2021004345 4 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. 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. 2021004345 5 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 28, 2022 Date