01973610
09-02-1999
Carol S. Shores, Appellant, v. Richard J. Danzig, Secretary, Department of the Navy, Agency.
Carol S. Shores, )
Appellant, )
)
v. ) Appeal No. 01973610
) Agency No. (MC) 95-67001-010
Richard J. Danzig, ) Hearing No. 140-96-8090X
Secretary, )
Department of the Navy, )
Agency. )
________________________________)
DECISION
Appellant timely appealed the agency's final decision that it had
not discriminated against her in violation of Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. � 2000e et seq., and the
Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), as amended,
29 C.F.R. � 621 et seq. In her complaint, appellant alleged that the
agency discriminated against her on the bases of sex (female) and age
(D.O.B: 9/11/40), when the agency: (1) denied her request to have
staff meetings; (2) refused to exempt her from using critique sheets,
although other trainers were not required to use them, and (3) denied her
administrative support (e.g. typing), and use of a government vehicle
to perform her job duties. This appeal is accepted by the Commission
in accordance with EEOC Order No. 960.001. For the following reasons,
the agency's final decision is AFFIRMED.
Appellant was employed by the agency as an Environmental Control
Specialist, GS-401-09, assigned to the Environmental Management
Department, Environmental Training Branch, Marine Corps Base, Camp Lejeune
(MCBCL), North Carolina. The record reveals that appellant's primary
job duties included coordinating, scheduling and running environmental
training classes on a day-to-day basis. These classes were the primary
source of information regarding Hazardous Waste Handling procedures for
MCBCL personnel, and appellant had total responsibility for providing this
training program. Supervisor #1 was appellant's immediate supervisor from
January 1994 until March 1995, when he left the agency. Supervisor #2
was appellant's second line supervisor from April 1994 until March 1995,
when he became appellant's immediate supervisor.
Following an investigation, appellant requested a hearing before an
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) administrative judge
(AJ). Pursuant to appropriate EEOC regulations, the Regional Attorney (RA)
of the EEOC's Charlotte District Office, issued a Recommended Decision
(RD) without a hearing, finding no discrimination<1>. On February 6,
1997, the agency issued a final decision, adopting the RA's findings of
no discrimination. It is from this decision that appellant now appeals.
The RA concluded that appellant failed to establish a prima facie case of
sex and age discrimination with respect to all three issues. Concerning
the first issue, the RA found that appellant did not demonstrate that she
was subjected to less favorable treatment than her alleged comparator.
Regarding the second and third issues, the RA determined that appellant
did not present any evidence of true comparators, or other evidence
of discrimination.
Assuming that appellant had established a prima facie case of sex and
age discrimination, the RA found that the agency articulated legitimate
nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions. With respect to the first
issue, the RA determined that on all occasions except for one, the
agency granted appellant's requests to meet with supervisors #1 and
#2, respectively. The agency explained that supervisor #1 denied
appellant's request to meet with him on one occasion because he was
leaving the agency. Therefore, he referred appellant to supervisor #2,
who would become appellant's immediate supervisor.
Regarding the second issue, the RA determined that the critique sheets,
which had been part of the training program since the program was
initiated, were necessary to evaluate the total training program.
Furthermore, the agency stated, and appellant agreed, that she was
the only principal instructor, and that the critique sheets also had
a provision for the critique of �guest� instructors. The RA found that
appellant was not held accountable for guest speakers who failed to appear
if she had fulfilled her coordination responsibilities. With respect
to the third issue, the RA determined that appellant was permitted
use of administrative and vehicular support services. Specifically,
appellant could obtain administrative support services if she timely
requested the services, and if the secretaries did not have priority
work assignments. Furthermore, the RA found that appellant could have
obtained a government vehicle if she made a request, and the requested
vehicle had not been assigned for use by another employee. However, the
RA determined that appellant preferred to use her privately owned vehicle.
Regarding all three issues, the RA concluded that appellant failed to
provide any persuasive evidence that the agency's articulated reasons
for its actions were pretext for discrimination.
After a careful review of the entire record, including arguments and
evidence not specifically addressed in this decision, the Commission finds
that the RA's RD sets forth the relevant facts, and properly analyzes
the appropriate regulations, policies, and laws applicable to appellant's
complaint. We agree with the RA. Therefore, the Commission discerns no
basis to disturb the RA's findings of no discrimination. Accordingly,
it is the decision of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to
AFFIRM the agency's final decision finding no discrimination.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0795)
The Commission may, in its discretion, reconsider the decision in this
case if the appellant or the agency submits a written request containing
arguments or evidence which tend to establish that:
1. New and material evidence is available that was not readily available
when the previous decision was issued; or
2. The previous decision involved an erroneous interpretation of law,
regulation or material fact, or misapplication of established policy; or
3. The decision is of such exceptional nature as to have substantial
precedential implications.
Requests to reconsider, with supporting arguments or evidence, MUST
BE FILED WITHIN THIRTY (30) CALENDAR DAYS of the date you receive this
decision, or WITHIN TWENTY (20) CALENDAR DAYS of the date you receive
a timely request to reconsider filed by another party. Any argument in
opposition to the request to reconsider or cross request to reconsider
MUST be submitted to the Commission and to the requesting party
WITHIN TWENTY (20) CALENDAR DAYS of the date you receive the request
to reconsider. See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.407. All requests and arguments
must bear proof of postmark and 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 filed on the date it is received
by the Commission.
Failure to file within the time period will result in dismissal of your
request for reconsideration as untimely. If extenuating circumstances
have prevented the timely filing of a request for reconsideration,
a written statement setting forth the circumstances which caused the
delay and 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).
RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (S0993)
It is the position of the Commission that 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.
You should be aware, however, that courts in some jurisdictions have
interpreted the Civil Rights Act of 1991 in a manner suggesting that
a civil action must be filed WITHIN THIRTY (30) CALENDAR DAYS from the
date that you receive this decision. To ensure that your civil action
is considered timely, you are advised to file it WITHIN THIRTY (30)
CALENDAR DAYS from the date that you receive this decision or to consult
an attorney concerning the applicable time period in the jurisdiction
in which your action would be filed. 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 (Z1092)
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 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:
9/02/99
DATE Carlton M. Hadden, Acting Director
Office of Federal Operations1 The Regional Attorney supervises
the Administrative Judges in the Commission's Charlotte District
Office, and has the authority to issue Recommended Decisions.