01982722
11-02-2000
Adam Currin, Complainant, v. Lawrence H. Summers, Secretary, Department of the Treasury, Agency.
Adam Currin v. Department of the Treasury
01982722
November 2, 2000
.
Adam Currin,
Complainant,
v.
Lawrence H. Summers,
Secretary,
Department of the Treasury,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01982722
Agency No. TD-96-3047
DECISION
Complainant timely initiated an appeal from a final agency decision
(FAD) concerning his 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.<1> The appeal is accepted pursuant
to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405. Complainant alleged that he was discriminated
against based on color (Black), sex (male), and in reprisal for prior
EEO activity when, on July 31, 1995, he was subjected to an operational
review.
The record reveals that during the relevant time, complainant was employed
as a Supervisor Internal Revenue Officer, GS-1169-13, with the agency's
Illinois District, Collection Division, in Chicago, Illinois. Believing
he was a victim of discrimination as referenced above, complainant sought
EEO counseling and subsequently filed a formal complaint on November 20,
1995. At the conclusion of the investigation, complainant was informed
of his right to request a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge or
alternatively, to receive a final decision by the agency. When complainant
failed to respond within the requisite regulatory time period, the agency
initially dismissed the complaint as moot, but subsequently rescinded
the dismissal and issued the FAD from which complainant now appeals.
On appeal, complainant contends, inter alia: (1) the issues were
improperly analyzed by the agency; (2) errors were contained in his
mid-year analysis, which was not performed in an objective manner; (3)
his alleged prior EEO activity, identified as defending himself against
a sexual harassment complaint made by one of his subordinates, was not
given due weight in the FAD's analysis; (4) other managers were told
that they were not meeting their inventory objectives but no follow-up
reviews were conducted for them; (5) his review was unannounced and
certain information collected in his absence, whereas other managers
who were reviewed in their absence had only inventory lists, not cases,
requested in their absence; and (6) he has not received recognition for
his accomplishments in inventory reduction.
Applying the standards set forth in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green,
411 U.S. 792 (1973) and Hochstadt v. Worcester Foundation for Experimental
Biology, Inc., 425 F. Supp. 318, 324 (D. Mass.), aff'd, 545 F.2d 222 (1st
Cir. 1976) (applying McDonnell Douglas to reprisal cases), the Commission
agrees with the agency that even assuming complainant established a prima
facie case of discrimination on any basis, complainant failed to establish
by a preponderance of the evidence that the agency's proffered legitimate,
non-discriminatory reason for the challenged action was a pretext for
discrimination. In reaching this conclusion, we note that the evidence
established that the Division Chief frequently initiated operational
reviews of managers in the same manner utilized in complainant's case.
Complainant contends that the evidence of such unannounced reviews was not
credible because one of the managers allegedly treated in the same manner
as complainant is a close personal friend of the Chief, and therefore
"it is difficult to envision that he would be subject to an unannounced
review." Complainant's Brief at 5. Such speculation is insufficient to
permit the requisite finding that more likely than not, the challenged
action was motivated by discriminatory or retaliatory animus.
Therefore, after a careful review of the record, including complainant's
contentions on appeal, the agency's response, and arguments and evidence
not specifically addressed in this decision, we AFFIRM the FAD.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0900)
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
November 2, 2000
__________________
Date
1 On November 9, 1999, revised regulations governing the EEOC's
federal sector complaint process went into effect. These regulations
apply to all federal sector EEO complaints pending at any stage in
the administrative process. Consequently, the Commission will apply
the revised regulations found at 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 in deciding the
present appeal. The regulations, as amended, may also be found at the
Commission's website at www.eeoc.gov.