01A23449
07-02-2003
Solomon Midgett, Complainant, v. Ann M. Veneman, Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Agency.
Solomon Midgett v. Department of Agriculture
01A23449
July 2, 2003
.
Solomon Midgett,
Complainant,
v.
Ann M. Veneman,
Secretary,
Department of Agriculture,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A23449
Agency Nos. 990502 and 990773
Hearing No. 100-A1-7876X
DECISION
Complainant timely initiated an appeal from the agency's final order
concerning his equal employment opportunity (EEO) complaint of unlawful
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. The appeal
is accepted pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405. For the following reasons,
the Commission affirms the agency's final order.
The record reveals that complainant, an Employee Relations Specialist
at the agency's Natural Resources Conservation Service, Washington,
D.C. filed formal EEO complaints in March and June of 1999, alleging
that the agency had discriminated against him on the bases of race
(Caucasian), sex (male) and in reprisal for prior EEO activity when:
(1) his supervisor spoke to and treated him in a rude and negative
manner;
he was overloaded with multiple work assignments to complete within
short time frames;
he was given extra-curricular assignments (e.g. Combined Federal
Campaign); and,
he was denied sick leave.
At the conclusion of the investigation, complainant received a copy
of the investigative report and requested a hearing before an EEOC
Administrative Judge (AJ). The AJ issued a decision in favor of the
agency without holding a hearing.
The AJ concluded that there were no issues of material fact or credibility
existed to warrant a hearing. Specifically, the AJ found that with
respect to issue 1 (rude treatment) and issue 3 (extra-curricular
assignments), the agency had not harmed complainant with respect to
the terms and conditions of complainant's employment. The AJ noted
that since there was no evidence to establish that the agency's
actions were abusive or offensive and taken to harass complainant,
such events are not sufficiently severe or pervasive as to offend the
general sensibility of an individual experiencing such occurrences in
the workplace. With respect to issue 2 (excessive workload), the AJ
found that other employees not in complainant's protected classes who
were similarly situated to him were also tasked with additional areas of
primary responsibility, performing a comparable amount and level of work.
Concerning issue 4 (sick leave denial), the AJ found that complainant had
simply failed to adequately fill out the sick leave form and neglected
to provide the appropriate and relevant information. The AJ noted that
similarly situated personnel provided the necessary information.
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 does not sit as a fact
finder. Id. 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. A disputed 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. If a case can only be resolved by weighing conflicting
evidence, issuance of a decision without a hearing is not appropriate.
An AJ may properly consider issuing a decision without a hearing only
upon a determination that the record has been adequately developed for
such disposition.
Upon review of the record, the Commission finds that the AJ correctly
determined that there were no genuine issues of material fact and
that the issuance of a decision without a hearing was appropriate.
Furthermore, we find that the AJ's decision properly summarized the
relevant facts and referenced the appropriate regulations, policies,
and laws. Construing the evidence to be most favorable to complainant, we
find that he failed to present evidence that the agency's actions, i.e.,
the rude and negative treatment, the work overload, the extra-curricular
assignments and the denial of sick leave, were motivated by discriminatory
animus toward complainant's protected classes. Consequently, we discern
no reason to disturb the AJ's decision as to these claims.
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
July 2, 2003
__________________
Date