[Redacted], Kelvin J., 1 Complainant,v.Christine Wormuth, Secretary, Department of the Army, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Jun 9, 2022

Appeal No. 2021004429 (E.E.O.C. Jun. 9, 2022)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Kelvin J.,1 Complainant, v. Christine Wormuth, Secretary, Department of the Army, Agency. Appeal No. 2021004429 Hearing No. 420-2021-00050X Agency No. ARRUCKER20MAR01216 DECISION On July 30, 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 July 26, 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. During the relevant time, Complainant worked as a Safety and Occupational Health Specialist at the Agency’s Garrison in Fort Rucker, Alabama. On April 26, 2020, Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging that the Agency discriminated against him and subjected him to a hostile work environment on the bases of sex (male) and in reprisal for prior protected EEO activity under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 when, on or about March 6, 2020, Complainant was issued a counseling statement for disrespect. 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 an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Administrative Judge (AJ). 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. 2021004429 2 Complainant timely requested a hearing. When the Complainant did not object, the AJ assigned to the case granted the Agency’s June 9, 2021, motion for a decision without a hearing and issued a decision without a hearing on June 28, 2021. The Agency issued a final order adopting the AJ’s finding that Complainant failed to prove that the Agency subjected him to discrimination as alleged. The instant appeal followed. 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. (Aug. 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 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 factfinder could not find in Complainant’s favor. Complainant’s Representative argues that Complainant’s due process was violated because documents requested during discovery went through Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) scans. They assert that the scans removed some documents, and that, because the Agency withheld the DISA scan inquiry report, they were unable to access the entirety of the requested documents. Complainant’s representative was aware of the DISA scans, and that some documents were omitted, during the discovery phase before the AJ. The Representative had the opportunity to raise this with the AJ before the Agency filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, or in response to the Agency’s Motion but did neither. Moreover, there is no specific argument as to how the DISA scans has prejudiced Complainant. Therefore, the Commission cannot find that this is sufficient to remand the case for a hearing. A claim of disparate treatment is examined under the three-part analysis first enunciated in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). Assuming, arguendo, that Complainant meets the prima facie case, we now turn to the Agency to articulate legitimate, non- discriminatory reason for its actions. We find that it has done so here. Specifically, Supervisor said that she was informed by DFMWR Director that Complainant spoke to Supervisory Facilities Specialist in a disrespectful manner. Record of Investigation (ROI) at 201. 2021004429 3 Supervisor clarified that her division places importance on customer service and speaking respectfully to all people. ROI at 201. She said that she has made it clear that her employees will not conduct themselves as “Safety Enforcers” and that speaking to a supervisor in a disrespectful tone is not acceptable. ROI at 201. Having found that the Agency successfully asserted a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its action, the Commission now turns to Complainant to provide evidence that the Agency’s actions were pretext for discrimination. We find that he has failed to provide such persuasive evidence in this case. While Complainant argued that Supervisor wants another female in the office, he has presented no evidence that the counseling statement was due to his protected classes, outside of his own inferences and suppositions. ROI at 194. Beliefs, without more, are not evidence of discrimination. See Complainant v. Dep’t of Def., EEOC Appeal No. 0120132159 (May 21, 2015) (affirming that supposition, without supporting evidence, is insufficient to prove discriminatory animus). As Complainant has not offered persuasive evidence to demonstrate that the Agency’s actions were related to his protected classes, the Commission cannot find that the Agency discriminated against Complainant regarding the issue at hand. The Commission finds that under the standards set forth in Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 510 U.S. at 17 (1993), Complainant's claim of hostile work environment must fail. See Enforcement Guidance on Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., EEOC Notice No. 915.002 (Mar. 3, 1994). Complainant's harassment claim is precluded based on our finding that she failed to establish that any of the actions taken by the Agency were motivated by discriminatory or retaliatory animus. See Oakley v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No. 01932923 (Sept. 21, 2000). CONCLUSION Accordingly, we AFFIRM the Agency’s final order implementing 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. 2021004429 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. 2021004429 5 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 June 9, 2022 Date