Brendan D.,1 Complainant,v.Dr. Mark T. Esper, Secretary, Department of the Army, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionApr 12, 2018
0120170821 (E.E.O.C. Apr. 12, 2018)

0120170821

04-12-2018

Brendan D.,1 Complainant, v. Dr. Mark T. Esper, Secretary, Department of the Army, Agency.


U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

Office of Federal Operations

P.O. Box 77960

Washington, DC 20013

Brendan D.,1

Complainant,

v.

Dr. Mark T. Esper,

Secretary,

Department of the Army,

Agency.

Appeal No. 0120170821

Hearing No. 420-2016-00165X

Agency No. ARREDSTON15MAY02504

DECISION

On December 17, 2016, Complainant filed an appeal with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Commission), pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.403(a), from the Agency's November 22, 2016, final order concerning his 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. For the following reasons, the Commission AFFIRMS the Agency's final order.

ISSUES PRESENTED

Whether the AJ properly issued a decision without a hearing finding that Complainant failed to demonstrate he was subjected to disparate treatment and discriminatory harassment based on race (African American) and reprisal for prior EEO activity when on or about June 23, 2015 he was reassigned a Product Director Test Measurement and Diagnostic Equipment (PDTMDE) position, with an effective date of July 12, 2015.

BACKGROUND

At the time of filing of this complaint, Complainant worked as a General Engineer, DB-0801-IV at the Agency's Army Aviation and Missile Research, Development and Engineering Command (AMRDEC) in Engineering Doctorate in Redstone Arsenal, Alabama. The record reflects a conversation occurred during Complainant's mid-year review in January 2015 regarding his possible reassignment because of an inadequate work level to support two DB-IV level engineer positions. In March 2015, Complainant's first-level supervisor (S1) sent him an email notifying him that the reassignment was taking place. On or around June 23, 2015, Complainant's second-level supervisor (S2) sent him a memorandum which confirmed the information relayed in the mid-year conference, that the Joint Attack Munition System (JAMS) Project Management Office (PMO) had determined that there was insufficient work to reimburse two DB-IV level engineers, and that it would be necessary to reassign Complainant to the Test Equipment Modernization Program in the Product Director's office at Test Measurement and Diagnostic Equipment (TMDE). Complainant met with S1 and expressed his concerns about the reassignment -- mainly that the reassignment to a non-supervisory position did not align with his career goals. Additionally, Complainant felt he was only minimally qualified to support the position located in the TMDE project.

On August 17, 2015, Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging that the Agency discriminated against him as articulated in the statement of Issues Presented above. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Agency provided Complainant with a copy of the report of investigation and notice of his right to request a hearing before an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Administrative Judge (AJ). Complainant timely requested a hearing. Over Complainant's objections, the AJ assigned to the case granted the Agency's September 8, 2016, motion for a decision without a hearing and issued a decision without a hearing on October 6, 2016. The Agency subsequently issued a final order adopting the AJ's finding that Complainant failed to prove that the Agency subjected him to discrimination as alleged.

Specifically, the AJ found that the Agency articulated legitimate non-discriminatory reasons for reassigning Complainant, and that despite his attempt to do so, Complainant was unable to establish pretext. Complainant was also unsuccessful in his attempts to demonstrate that someone outside his protected category was treated differently than he was with respect to the reassignment.

CONTENTIONS ON APPEAL

On appeal, Complainant contends that the denial of a hearing prohibited him from developing a complete record. He requests that the Commission reverse the Agency's final order adopting the AJ's decision without a hearing and remand the case for a hearing. The Agency contends that Complainant has not produced sufficient evidence warranting reversal of the AJ's decision.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

In rendering this appellate decision we must scrutinize the AJ's legal and factual conclusions, and the Agency's final order adopting them, de novo. See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405(a) (stating that a "decision on an appeal from an Agency's final action shall be based on a de novo review . . ."); see also Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive for 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 (EEO MD-110), at Chap. 9, � VI.B. (Aug. 5, 2015) (providing that an administrative judge's determination to issue a decision without a hearing, and the decision itself, will both be reviewed de novo). This essentially means that we should look at this case with fresh eyes. In other words, we are free to accept (if accurate) or reject (if erroneous) the AJ's, and Agency's, factual conclusions and legal analysis - including on the ultimate fact of whether intentional discrimination occurred, and on the legal issue of whether any federal employment discrimination statute was violated. See id. at Chapter 9, � VI.A. (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").

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

We must determine whether it was appropriate for the AJ to have issued a decision without a hearing on this record. 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, issuing a decision without holding a hearing is not appropriate. In the context of an administrative proceeding, an AJ may properly consider issuing a decision without holding a hearing only upon a determination that the record has been adequately developed for summary disposition. See Petty v. Dep't of Def., EEOC Appeal No. 01A24206 (July 11, 2003). Finally, an AJ should not rule in favor of one party without holding a hearing unless he or she ensures that the party opposing the ruling is given (1) ample notice of the proposal to issue a decision without a hearing, (2) a comprehensive statement of the allegedly undisputed material facts, (3) the opportunity to respond to such a statement, and (4) the chance to engage in discovery before responding, if necessary. According to the Supreme Court, Rule 56 itself precludes summary judgment "where the [party opposing summary judgment] has not had the opportunity to discover information that is essential to his opposition." Anderson, 477 U.S. at 250. In the hearing context, this means that the administrative judge must enable the parties to engage in the amount of discovery necessary to properly respond to any motion for a decision without a hearing. Cf. 29 C.F.R. � 1614.109(g)(2) (suggesting that an administrative judge could order discovery, if necessary, after receiving an opposition to a motion for a decision without a hearing).

After a review of the record, we find that there are no genuine issues of material fact or any credibility issues which required a hearing and therefore the AJ's issuance of a decision without a hearing was appropriate. The record has been adequately developed, Complainant was given notice of the Agency's motion to issue a decision without a hearing, he was given a comprehensive statement of undisputed facts, he was given an opportunity to respond to the motion and statement of undisputed facts, and he had the opportunity to engage in discovery. Under these circumstances, we find that the AJ's decision without a hearing was appropriate.

Disparate Treatment

In the absence of direct evidence of discrimination, the allocation of burdens and order of presentation of proof in a Title VII case alleging discrimination is a three-step process. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802-803 (1973); see Hochstadt v. Worcestor Foundation for Experimental Biology, Inc., 425 F. Supp. 318 (D. Mass. 1976), aff'd 545 F.2d 222 (1st Cir. 1976) (applying McDonnell Douglas to retaliation cases). First, Complainant must 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. Next, the Agency must articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason(s) for its actions. Texas Dep't of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 253 (1981). If the Agency is successful, then Complainant must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the legitimate reason(s) proffered by the agency was a pretext for discrimination. Id. at 256.

Assuming, arguendo, that Complainant established a prima facie case of discrimination based on race and reprisal, we concur with the AJ's finding that the Agency articulated a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for each of the actions taken by Agency management. The record reflects that several managerial reviews of the JAMS project's needs supported the Agency's position that the current workload was insufficient to support two DB-IV level engineers. S2 stated that he provides engineers to about 20 different programs on a reimbursable basis, and that they were frequently moved as needs of the programs change. This practice of moving engineers to support the changing needs of the project is described as the "nature of [the] business." The position offered to Complainant was one of two unfilled requests for a DB-IV level engineer.

In an effort to establish pretext, while admitting that he suffered no loss of pay or benefits as a result of the reassignment, Complainant contended that the "conditions were different" and declared that the reassignment affected his abilities to become a DB-IV level supervisor. These bare assertions without evidence to demonstrate discriminatory intent by the Agency are insufficient to establish pretext. Additionally, we find Complainant's allegation that a similarly situated employee was treated differently with respect to the reassignment because he was not issued a memorandum to be without merit as the record reflects this employee did not receive a memorandum regarding the reassignment because he did not express dissatisfaction with the reassignment as Complainant had. The Commission has long held that an Agency has broad discretion to set policies and carry out personnel decisions, and should not be second-guessed by the reviewing authority absent evidence of unlawful motivation. Texas Dep't of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 259; Vanek v. Dep't of the Treasury, EEOC Request No. 05940906 (January 16, 1997).

Harassment

With respect to Complainant's contention that he was subject to a hostile work environment with respect to the matters set forth in his complaint, we find that under the standards set forth in Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 510 U.S. 17 (1993) that Complainant's claim of hostile work environment must fail. See Enforcement Guidance on Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., EEOC Notice No. 915.002 (Mar. 8, 1994). A finding of a hostile work environment is precluded by our determination that Complainant failed to establish that any of the actions taken by the Agency were motivated by discriminatory animus. See Oakley v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 01982923 (Sept. 21, 2000). We concur with the AJ's findings that the allegations complained of in the instant matter did not rise to the level of actionable harassment.

CONCLUSION

Based on a thorough review of the record, we find that the AJ properly issued a decision without a hearing finding that Complainant failed to demonstrate he was subject to discrimination as articulated above in the statement of Issues Presented. The Agency's final order adopting the AJ's decision therefore is AFFIRMED.

STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL

RECONSIDERATION (M0617)

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. A party shall have twenty (20) calendar days of receipt of another party's timely request for reconsideration in which to submit a brief or statement in opposition. See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405; Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive for 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 (EEO MD-110), at Chap. 9 � VII.B (Aug. 5, 2015). All requests and arguments must be submitted to the Director, Office of Federal Operations, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Complainant's request may be submitted via regular mail to P.O. Box 77960, Washington, DC 20013, or by certified mail to 131 M Street, NE, Washington, DC 20507. 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 agency's request must be submitted in digital format via the EEOC's Federal Sector EEO Portal (FedSEP). See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.403(g). 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 (Z0815)

If you want to file a civil action but cannot pay the fees, costs, or security to do so, you may request permission from the court to proceed with the civil action without paying these fees or costs. Similarly, if you cannot afford an attorney to represent you in the civil action, you may request the court to appoint an attorney for you. You must submit the requests for waiver of court costs or appointment of an attorney directly to the court, not the Commission. The court has the sole discretion to grant or deny these types of requests. Such requests do not alter the

time limits for filing a civil action (please read the paragraph titled Complainant's Right to File a Civil Action for the specific time limits).

FOR THE COMMISSION:

______________________________ Carlton M. Hadden's signature

Carlton M. Hadden, Director

Office of Federal Operations

_____4/12/18_____________

Date

1 This case has been randomly assigned a pseudonym which will replace Complainant's name when the decision is published to non-parties and the Commission's website.

---------------

------------------------------------------------------------

---------------

------------------------------------------------------------

2

0120170821

7

0120170821