Salvatore J. Giarrizzo, Complainant,v.Alberto Gonzales, Attorney General, Department of Justice, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionMay 16, 2007
0120063139 (E.E.O.C. May. 16, 2007)

0120063139

05-16-2007

Salvatore J. Giarrizzo, Complainant, v. Alberto Gonzales, Attorney General, Department of Justice, Agency.


Salvatore J. Giarrizzo,

Complainant,

v.

Alberto Gonzales,

Attorney General,

Department of Justice,

Agency.

Appeal No. 01200631391

Hearing No. 170-2005-00457X

Agency No. F-04-5901

DECISION

Complainant filed the instant appeal from the agency's April 12, 2006

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.

At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, complainant worked

as a Special Agent with the Federal Bureau of Investigation's (FBI)

office in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Complainant filed a complaint

alleging that he was discriminated against on the bases of sex (male)

and in retaliation for prior EEO activity, when on March 12, 2004,

his request for a hardship transfer was denied.

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 (AJ). Complainant requested

a hearing. The AJ granted the agency's motion for a decision without

a hearing and issued a decision without a hearing on March 3, 2006.

The agency subsequently issued a final order on April 12, 2006, adopting

the AJ's finding that complainant failed to prove that he was subjected

to discrimination as alleged.

The Commission's regulations allow an AJ to issue a decision without a

hearing when he or she finds that there is no genuine issue of material

fact. 29 C.F.R. � 1614.109(g). This regulation is patterned after the

summary judgment procedure set forth in Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that summary judgment

is appropriate where a court determines that, given the substantive

legal and evidentiary standards that apply to the case, there exists

no genuine issue of material fact. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,

477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986). In ruling on a motion for summary judgment,

a court's function is not to weigh the evidence but rather to determine

whether there are genuine issues for trial. Id. at 249. The evidence of

the non-moving party must be believed at the summary judgment stage and

all justifiable inferences must be drawn in the non-moving party's favor.

Id. at 255. 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.

We find that the AJ properly issued a decision without a hearing in

the instant case. Complainant failed to show that he met the agency's

internal standards for hardship transfer. Furthermore, we agree with

the AJ that complainant failed to show that any similarly situated

employee was granted a hardship transfer. We agree with the AJ that the

comparative employee cited by complainant who was granted a transfer had a

significantly different circumstance than complainant. That comparative

employee, unlike complainant, provided evidence supporting a conclusion

that she needed to be located in a specific geographic location.

That evidence was necessary to support a hardship transfer request. We

find that complainant has not shown that any agency action was motivated

by discrimination. After a careful review of the record, we find no

reason to disturb the AJ's decision to render a decision without a

hearing and finding that no discrimination occurred.

We therefore AFFIRM the agency's final order finding no discrimination.

STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL

RECONSIDERATION (M0701)

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 (S0900)

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 (Z1199)

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 that the Court appoint

an attorney to represent you and that the Court 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 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

May 16, 2007

__________________

Date

1 Due to a new data system, the Commission has redesignated the instant

case with the above referenced appeal number.

??

??

??

??

2

0120062452

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

Office of Federal Operations

P. O. Box 19848

Washington, D.C. 20036

4 0120063139