Steven D. Roach, Complainant,v.Henry M. Paulson, Jr., Secretary, Department of the Treasury, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionMay 30, 2007
0120060688 (E.E.O.C. May. 30, 2007)

0120060688

05-30-2007

Steven D. Roach, Complainant, v. Henry M. Paulson, Jr., Secretary, Department of the Treasury, Agency.


Steven D. Roach,

Complainant,

v.

Henry M. Paulson, Jr.,

Secretary,

Department of the Treasury,

Agency.

Appeal No. 01200606881

Agency No. 04-2498

DECISION

Complainant appeals to the Commission from the agency's October 11, 2005

decision finding no discrimination. Complainant alleges that he was

discriminated on the bases of race (American Indian), religion (Native

American), age (date of birth: June 14, 1962) and in reprisal for his

wife's prior protected EEO activity when he applied for the position

of Revenue Officer (RO), GS-169-07 (according to Vacancy Announcement

Number OGD-04-1169-7-001), and the agency allegedly harassed him in the

following manner in May 2004:

1. Informed complainant by electronic mail that the RO positions were

announced to be filled in Georgia and Alabama.

2. Informed complainant by telephone that RO positions were announced

to be filled in Georgia and Alabama.

3. Tampered with complainant's application by removing the locations of

Georgia and Alabama from his areas of considerations.

4. Informed complainant that there were no RO positions announced in

Georgia and Alabama.

The agency, in its decision, concluded that it asserted a legitimate,

nondiscriminatory reason for its actions, which complainant failed

to rebut. Complainant now appeals from that decision.

As to the claim of harassment, the agency noted that complainant's alleged

discriminatory harassment consisted of the incidents as stated in claims 1

through 4. The record indicates that complainant was found ineligible for

the vacancy to which he applied because he did not send in the necessary

information about his educational background. The agency found that there

was no evidence that complainant was subjected to harassing verbal or

physical conduct based on his protected class status. The agency asserted

that, other than the statements of complainant and his wife, there was

no evidence that any agency officials communicated to complainant that

there were available positions in Georgia and Alabama. Furthermore, the

agency claimed that the vacancy announcement listed possible vacancies

in 83 cities, none of which were in those two states. The agency argued

that complainant's electronic application listed locations in Florida,

North Carolina and South Carolina where complainant was willing to work

and there was no evidence that the agency tampered with that application.

The agency articulated that, even if complainant's allegations were true,

the alleged incidents would not amount to unlawful harassment. The

agency stated that the challenged conduct was not sufficiently severe or

pervasive to create an unlawful hostile environment. The agency asserted

that the record showed no discriminatory bias by agency officials against

complainant. Agency officials claimed that they contacted complainant

on several occasions offering him the opportunities for job interviews.

Moreover, the agency found that there was no evidence that the agency

officials who interacted with complainant were even aware of his national

origin, religion, age or his wife's prior EEO activity at the time of

the events at issue. The agency reported that they found no reason why

the agency officials would have knowledge of complainant's own protected

activity which occurred approximately nine years earlier and with another

agency.

The agency argued that the events complainant raised, taken together,

even if they occurred as stated, were insufficient to establish a

pattern of severe, pervasive and repetitive discriminatory behavior.

The agency reported that, taken individually, none of the events

raised by complainant constituted unlawful disparate treatment on any

of complainant's alleged bases. The agency denied the events at issue

occurred and stated that there was nothing in the evidence to support

complainant's claim that jobs existed and were filled in those geographic

areas of interest to him.

The Commission finds that complainant failed to show that the agency's

reasons are pretext for discrimination. Furthermore, complainant failed

to show, by a preponderance of the evidence that he was discriminated

against on the bases of race, religion, age or reprisal. To the extent

that complainant is claiming that the non-selection for the listed vacancy

announcement number was discriminatory, we find no evidence supporting

such an assertion.

The agency's decision finding no discrimination is AFFIRMED.

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 30, 2007

__________________

Date

1 Due to a new data system, this case has been redesignated with the

above referenced appeal number.

??

??

??

??

2

0120060688

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

Office of Federal Operations

P. O. Box 19848

Washington, D.C. 20036

4

0120060688