0120120697
03-13-2012
Teresa E. Vandeusen, Complainant, v. Gary Locke, Secretary, Department of Commerce (Bureau of the Census), Agency.
Teresa E. Vandeusen,
Complainant,
v.
Gary Locke,
Secretary,
Department of Commerce
(Bureau of the Census),
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120120697
Hearing No. 550-2010-00271X
Agency No. 10-63-02082D
DECISION
Complainant filed an appeal from the Agency’s final order dated
October 25, 2011, finding no discrimination with regard to her complaint.
For the following reasons, we AFFIRM the Agency’s final order.
BACKGROUND
In her complaint, dated July 13, 2010, Complainant alleged discrimination
in reprisal for requesting a reasonable accommodation when management
terminated her from her position as an Enumerator on May 21, 2010. Upon
completion of the investigation of the complaint, Complainant requested a
hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). On October 7, 2011, the
AJ issued a decision without holding a hearing, finding no discrimination.
The Agency’s final order implemented the AJ’s decision.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
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.
The Commission finds that grant of summary judgment was appropriate,
as no genuine dispute of material fact exists. In this case, assuming
arguendo that Complainant had established a prima facie case of
discrimination, the AJ determined that the Agency has articulated
legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for the alleged termination.
The AJ noted that prior to her first day of employment on April 20, 2010,
Complainant reported for training and she informed her trainer, a Crew
Leader (CL1), on April 16, 2010, that she had a mold sensitivity and was
concerned that the Agency’s training facility would trigger her allergy.
CL1 asked Complainant if she wanted to wait for training later at another
location or attend the scheduled training on April 20, 2010, and see if
she experienced any problems. Complainant responded that she would attend
the training as scheduled on April 20, 2010. Complainant does not contest
this. Complainant attended the April 20, 2010 training, but immediately
informed CL1 that she was having an allergic reaction. Complainant then
immediately exited the training facility and CL1 responded by assuring
her that she would immediately arrange for her training at a different,
newer facility. Complainant does not claim that the Agency failed to
accommodate her condition during the relevant time period.
Accordingly, Complainant underwent the required training without incident
and worked under another Crew Leader (CL2). CL2 indicated that while she
was working for him, Complainant exhibited inappropriate conduct and poor
attitude, constantly challenged his decisions, and was argumentative.
Another Crew Leader (CL3), who also worked with her, also indicated
that Complainant had poor performance and inefficient use of time.
CL3 recommended to his Area Manager that Complainant be terminated due
to her ongoing conduct problems and insubordination. After considering
concerns expressed by CL1, CL2, and CL3 concerning Complainant’s
conduct and performance, the Area Manager terminated Complainant on the
bases of her conduct and performance effective May 23, 2010. After a
review of the record, we agree with the AJ’s findings that Complainant
failed to show the Agency’s articulated nondiscriminatory reasons for
terminating her were pretextual. Based on the foregoing, we find that
Complainant has failed to show that the Agency’s action was motivated
by discrimination as she alleged.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the Agency’s final order finding no discrimination is
AFFIRMED.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0610)
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), at 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
77960, Washington, DC 20013. 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 (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 (Z0610)
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 from the Court that
the Court appoint an attorney to represent you and that the Court also
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 with
the Court 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
3/13/12
__________________
Date
2
0120120697
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
4
0120120697