0120070198
09-03-2008
Zephnie P. Easley, Complainant, v. Pete Geren, Secretary, Department of the Army, Agency.
Zephnie P. Easley,
Complainant,
v.
Pete Geren,
Secretary,
Department of the Army,
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120070198
Hearing No. 170-2005-05545X
Agency No. ARSSCOM03JUL0011
DECISION
On October 2, 2006, complainant filed an appeal from the agency's final
order concerning her 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. The appeal
is deemed timely and is accepted pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405(a).
For the following reasons, the Commission affirms the agency's final
order.
BACKGROUND
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, complainant worked
as a Supply Technician, GS-5, at the agency's facility in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania. On January 30, 2004, complainant filed an EEO complaint
alleging that she was discriminated against in reprisal for prior
protected EEO activity when on or about August 11, 2003, she was not
selected for the position of Support Services Technician, GS-7, under
vacancy announcement number NEDB0318793.
At the conclusion of the investigation, complainant was provided with a
copy of the report of investigation and notice of her right to request
a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). Complainant timely
requested a hearing. The AJ assigned to the case granted the agency's
motion for a decision without a hearing, dated December 29, 2005, and
issued a decision on July 31, 2006, finding no discrimination. The AJ
found that, after viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to
complainant, a decision without a hearing was appropriate as there were
no genuine issues of material fact in dispute. The AJ further found
that assuming, arguendo, complainant established a prima facie case of
reprisal discrimination, the agency nonetheless articulated legitimate,
nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions that complainant failed to
show were pretextual.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
As an initial matter we note that, as this is an appeal from a FAD
issued without a hearing, pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.110(b), the
agency's decision is subject to de novo review by the Commission. 29
C.F.R. � 1614.405(a). 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. If a case can only be resolved by weighing conflicting
evidence, it is not appropriate for an AJ to issue a decision without
a hearing. In the context of an administrative proceeding, an AJ may
properly issue a decision without a hearing only upon a determination
that the record has been adequately developed for summary disposition.
Petty v. Defense Security Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01A24206 (July 11,
2003); Murphy v. Dept. of the Army, EEOC Appeal No. 01A04099 (July 11,
2003).
After a careful review of the record, the Commission finds that a
decision without a hearing was appropriate, as no genuine dispute of
material fact exists. To prevail in a disparate treatment claim such
as this, complainant must satisfy the three-part evidentiary scheme
fashioned by the Supreme Court in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green,
411 U.S. 792 (1973). She must generally establish a prima facie case
by demonstrating that she was subjected to an adverse employment action
under circumstances that would support an inference of discrimination.
Furnco Construction Co. v. Waters, 438 U.S. 567, 576 (1978). The prima
facie inquiry may be dispensed with in this case, however, since the
agency has articulated legitimate and nondiscriminatory reasons for its
conduct. See United States Postal Service Board of Governors v. Aikens,
460 U.S. 711, 713-17 (1983); Holley v. Department of Veterans Affairs,
EEOC Request No. 05950842 (November 13, 1997). To ultimately prevail,
complainant must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the
agency's explanation is a pretext for discrimination. Reeves v. Sanderson
Plumbing Products, Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 120 S.Ct. 2097 (2000); St. Mary's
Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 519 (1993); Texas Department
of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 256 (1981); Holley
v. Department of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Request No. 05950842 (November
13, 1997); Pavelka v. Department of the Navy, EEOC Request No. 05950351
(December 14, 1995).
Here, we concur with the AJ's finding that the agency articulated
legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions. Specifically,
complainant's name was not placed on the list of eligible candidates for
the position at issue because she did not meet the minimum qualification
requirements. The record shows that the vacancy announcement for the
position of Support Services Technician, GS-7, stated that "applicants
must have one year of specialized experience equivalent to at least the
GS-6 level." (Report of Investigation, F-16). Complainant acknowledged
that she did not meet this requirement. (R.O.I., Fact-Finding Conference,
16). Accordingly, we find that complainant proffered no evidence from
which a reasonable fact-finder could conclude that her non-selection was
motivated by retaliatory animus, and we concur with the AJ's finding
that complainant failed to show that the agency's articulated reasons
for its actions were a pretext for unlawful reprisal. We find that
viewing the record evidence in a light most favorable to complainant,
there are no genuine issues of material fact. We further find that
the AJ appropriately issued a decision without a hearing finding no
discrimination. Therefore, we discern no basis to disturb the AJ's
decision and the agency's final order is affirmed.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0408)
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 (S0408)
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 (Z0408)
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
September 3, 2008
__________________
Date
2
0120070198
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P. O. Box 19848
Washington, D.C. 20036
4
0120070198