0120111985
09-14-2012
Bonnie K. Monroe-Disque, Complainant, v. Lt. Gen. Keith B. Alexander, Director, National Security Agency, Agency.
Bonnie K. Monroe-Disque,
Complainant,
v.
Lt. Gen. Keith B. Alexander,
Director,
National Security Agency,
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120111985
Agency No. 10-013
DECISION
Complainant appeals to the Commission from the Agency's final decision dated January 28, 2011, finding no discrimination. For the following reasons, we AFFIRM the Agency's final decision.
BACKGROUND
In her complaint, dated January 21, 2010, Complainant, a Threat Vulnerability Analyst, GG-11, assigned to I8235, alleged discrimination based on age (over 40) and sex (female) when she was not promoted to GG-12 by "I8235" management on May 24, 2009. After completion of the investigation of the complaint, Complainant requested a final Agency decision. The Agency thus issued its final Agency decision concluding that it asserted legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its action, which Complainant failed to rebut.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
As this is an appeal from a decision 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). See Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive for 29 C.F.R. Part 1614, at Chapter 9, � VI.A. (November 9, 1999) (explaining that the de novo standard of review "requires that the Commission examine the record without regard to the factual and legal determinations of the previous decision maker," and that EEOC "review the documents, statements, and testimony of record, including any timely and relevant submissions of the parties, and . . . issue its decision based on the Commission's own assessment of the record and its interpretation of the law").
After a review of the record, assuming arguendo that Complainant had established a prima facie case of discrimination, we find that the Agency has articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for the alleged nonpromotion. The Agency stated that during the relevant time period, pursuant to its promotion process, Complainant submitted her Performance Review Package (PRP) that included an internal staffing resume, Performance Evaluations, and a Promotion Profile to her first level supervisor (S1). Based on her volume of accomplishments, S1 forwarded Complainant's PRP to the next level supervisor (S2) for promotion at issue. The Agency stated that S2 reviewed eight PRPs, including Complainant's, from four supervisors who reported to her, including S1, for promotion to GG-12 and below grade level. After reviewing each PRP and comparing documented accomplishments contained in each PRP, S2 did not forward Complainant's PRP, but forwarded a different individual to a selecting official for the GG-12 promotion at issue.
S2 stated that she completed a promotion evaluation score sheet for each individual she reviewed, which was used to evaluate employees' accomplishments under the Agency's promotion criteria. S2 indicated that Complainant received a score of 76 which was below her cut off score of 84 for promotion nomination. Specifically, S2 stated that Complainant's accomplishments did not have much impact, whereas the selectee managed a large property account, demonstrated superb organizational skills, briefed classes, and supported user conferences. The selectee scored 86 and was ultimately promoted by the selecting official.
Upon review, we find that Complainant failed to rebut the Agency's legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for not promoting her to GG-12. Furthermore, Complainant failed to show that her qualifications for the promotion were plainly superior to the selectee's qualifications or that the Agency's action was motivated by discrimination. See Wasser v. Department of Labor, EEOC Request No. 05940058 (November 2, 1995). 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 decision 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
9/14/12
__________________
Date
2
0120111985
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013