Bonnie G. Clemonts, Complainant,v.F. Whitten Peters, Acting Secretary, Department of the Air Force, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionMar 24, 2000
01985649 (E.E.O.C. Mar. 24, 2000)

01985649

03-24-2000

Bonnie G. Clemonts, Complainant, v. F. Whitten Peters, Acting Secretary, Department of the Air Force, Agency.


Bonnie G. Clemonts v. Department of the Air Force

01985649

March 24, 2000

Bonnie G. Clemonts, )

Complainant, )

) Appeal No. 01985649

v. ) Agency No. 980448

)

F. Whitten Peters, )

Acting Secretary, )

Department of the Air Force, )

Agency. )

)

)

DECISION

INTRODUCTION

Bonnie G. Clemonts (complainant) timely filed an appeal on July 10,

1998 with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the Commission)

from a final agency decision (FAD), dated June 8, 1998, concerning a

complaint of unlawful employment discrimination in violation of Title

VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. � 2000e et

seq.<1> The Commission hereby accepts the appeal in accordance with 64

Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659 (1999)(to be codified at 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405).

ISSUE PRESENTED

Whether the agency correctly determined that complainant was not

discriminated against on the bases of race (Black), sex (female), or

reprisal (prior EEO activity) when she was allegedly not notified that

she was being considered for a position, and when she was nonselected

for that position.

BACKGROUND

Complainant was employed by the agency as a Supply Clerk, GS-4.

She filed a formal complaint on June 12, 1997 alleging discrimination

on the bases of race (Black), sex (female), and reprisal when: 1)

she was allegedly not notified in a timely manner that she was being

considered for a promotion to a Supply Technician, GS-2005-05; and 2)

on February 10, 1997, she was nonselected for that position. The FAD

found no discrimination. Its finding was based on the fact that an

attempt was made to notify complainant that she was being considered for

the position, and that complainant's qualifications were not so plainly

superior to the candidate chosen as to warrant a finding of pretext.

This appeal followed.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

A claim of disparate treatment is examined under the three-part analysis

first enunciated in McDonnell Douglas Corporation v. Green, 411 U.S. 792

(1973). For complainant to prevail, she must first establish a prima

facie case of discrimination by presenting facts that, if unexplained,

reasonably give rise to an inference of discrimination, i.e., that a

prohibited consideration was a factor in the adverse employment action.

McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 802; Furnco Construction Corp. v. Waters,

438 U.S. 567 (1978). The burden then shifts to the agency to articulate a

legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its actions. Texas Department of

Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 253 (1981). Once the agency

has met its burden, the complainant bears the ultimate responsibility

to persuade the fact finder by a preponderance of the evidence that

the agency acted on the basis of a prohibited reason. St. Mary's Honor

Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (1993).

This established order of analysis in discrimination cases, in which

the first step normally consists of determining the existence of

a prima facie case, need not be followed in all cases. Where the

agency has articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the

personnel action at issue, the factual inquiry can proceed directly to

the third step of the McDonnell Douglas analysis, the ultimate issue of

whether complainant has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that

the agency's actions were motivated by discrimination. U.S. Postal

Service Board of Governors v. Aikens, 460 U.S. 711, 713-714 (1983);

Hernandez v. Department of Transportation, EEOC Request No. 05900159

(June 28, 1990); Peterson v. Department of Health and Human Services,

EEOC Request No. 05900467 (June 8, 1990); Washington v. Department of

the Navy, EEOC Petition No. 03900056 (May 31, 1990).

In response to complainant's claim that she was not notified that she

was being considered for the Supply Technician position, we find that

the agency presented evidence that an attempt was made to notify her.

The selecting official, S-1, stated in his sworn affidavit, that he did

not send letters notifying candidates that they were being considered

for the position because the entire selection process was completed in

a single day. Instead, he contacted candidates by telephone and told

them that they were being considered. Complainant was on leave at

the time and did not have an answering machine, so S-1 left a message

with her supervisor asking complainant to see him when she got back.

We find that the agency has articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory

reason, namely that there was no time to send a notification letter,

and that complainant could not be reached via telephone. Since the

agency articulated such a reason, the burden returns to the complainant

to demonstrate that the agency's articulated reason was a pretext for

discrimination. We find that the complainant has failed to do so because

she has not provided any evidence to disprove S-1's claim that he tried

to contact her, such as an affidavit from her supervisor. In addition,

there is no evidence in the record to contradict S-1's assertion that he

attempted to notify complainant. Therefore, the agency's determination

that complainant failed to establish that she was discriminated against,

with respect to this claim, was correct.

In response to complainant's claim that she was nonselected for

the position, we find that the agency has articulated a legitimate,

nondiscriminatory reason for the nonselection, namely that the candidate

selected for the position was better qualified than the complainant. S-1

testified in a sworn affidavit that he reviewed and rated the ten merit

promotion candidates' official personnel records, and mechanized career

briefs, and that he was looking for the most experienced candidate. The

selected candidate had significant training, experience as a GS-2005-05,

and he was working in the aircraft support area where 70 percent of

the organization's business originated. Most of complainant's work,

on the other hand, was in document control, where she filed documents.

Since the agency articulated such a reason, the burden returns to the

complainant to demonstrate that the agency's articulated reason was a

pretext for discrimination. We find that the complainant has failed

to do so because she has not demonstrated, nor does the record show,

that her qualifications were so plainly superior to the selectees.

See Hodges v. Navy, EEOC Request No. 05950022 (July 12, 1996) (citing

Bauer v. Bailer, 647 F.2d 1037, 1048 (10th Cir. 1981)). Additionally,

the record contains no other evidence of pretext. Therefore, the

agency's determination that complainant failed to establish that she

was discriminated against, with respect to this claim, was correct.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, the decision of the agency was proper and is AFFIRMED.

STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL

RECONSIDERATION (M0300)

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 64

Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659 (1999) (to be codified and hereinafter referred

to as 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 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,661 (1999) (to be codified and hereinafter

referred to as 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 (S1199)

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:

March 24, 2000

Date Carlton M. Hadden, Acting Director

Office of Federal Operations

CERTIFICATE OF MAILING

For timeliness purposes, the Commission will presume that this decision

was received within five (5) calendar days of mailing. I certify that

the decision was mailed to complainant, complainant's representative

(if applicable), and the agency on:

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 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644 (1999), where applicable, in deciding the

present appeal. The regulations, as amended, may also be found at the

Commission's website at www.eeoc.gov.