Cathy Bethea, Petitioner,v.Timothy F. Geithner, Secretary, Department of the Treasury, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionAug 13, 2009
0320090073 (E.E.O.C. Aug. 13, 2009)

0320090073

08-13-2009

Cathy Bethea, Petitioner, v. Timothy F. Geithner, Secretary, Department of the Treasury, Agency.


Cathy Bethea,

Petitioner,

v.

Timothy F. Geithner,

Secretary,

Department of the Treasury,

Agency.

Petition No. 0320090073

MSPB No. DC0432090116I1

DECISION

On July 16, 2009, petitioner filed a timely petition with the Equal

Employment Opportunity Commission asking for review of a Final Order

issued by the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) concerning her claim

of discrimination in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment

Act of 1967 (ADEA), as amended, 29 U.S.C. � 621 et seq.

Petitioner alleged that she was discriminated against on the basis of

age (71) when, effective October 30, 2008, she was removed him from her

position as a Human Resources Assistant.

The record reflects that in the Notice of Proposed Removal, the agency

stated that petitioner's performance was unacceptable as measured

against her 2006 Performance Plan. According to the record, petitioner

was provided with a performance plan which described the five critical

elements of her position. In conformity with the plan, a Human Resources

Assistant's job performance is evaluated on how well she performed

with regard to five critical job elements: 1) Employee Satisfaction -

Employee Contribution; 2) Customer Satisfaction - Knowledge; 3) Customer

Satisfaction - Application; 4) Business Results - Quality; and 5)

Business Results - Efficiency. The Chief of Employee/Labor Relations,

Field Operations (Branch C) proposed to remove petitioner for unacceptable

performance in two critical elements, 4 and 5, of her position. In the

proposal notice, petitioner was charged with unacceptable performance

in all critical elements of her position.

Further review of the record reveals that the agency placed petitioner on

a so-called "Performance Improvement Plan" (PIP). The agency maintained

that petitioner was placed on the PIP because she had been unable to

improve her performance during a prior performance period. In the

PIP, petitioner was informed that her performance was unsuccessful in

several critical elements of her position, namely: Critical Element 4

(Business Results - Quality); and Critical Element 5 (Business Results

- Efficiency). The agency ultimately removed petitioner based on

unsatisfactory performance. The agency concluded that, despite its

best efforts to improve petitioner's work performance which even

included mentoring by one of petitioner's superiors, petitioner's

work assignments were continuously less than satisfactory and below a

"minimally successful" rating.

Following a hearing, the Administrative Judge (AJ) found that the

testimony of agency witnesses was more credible than that of petitioner.

With respect to petitioner's claims of age discrimination, the AJ found

that petitioner failed to show that agency officials were motivated

by discriminatory animus. The AJ strongly noted that the performance

standards, under which petitioner's performance was deemed unacceptable,

are valid; and petitioner was duly notified of the performance standards.

The AJ maintained that the record supports petitioner's removal by the

agency. In effect, petitioner failed to show a nexus between her age

and the agency's actions or that the actions were a pretext for unlawful

discrimination. Petitioner sought review by the full Board, but the Board

denied petitioner's petition for review. Thereafter petitioner filed the

instant petition with the Commission. She proffered no appeal statement.

EEOC Regulations provide that the Commission has jurisdiction over

mixed case appeals on which the MSPB has issued a decision that makes

determinations on allegations of discrimination. 29 C.F.R. � 1614.303

et seq. The Commission must determine whether the decision of the

MSPB with respect to the allegation of discrimination constitutes a

correct interpretation of any applicable law, rule, regulation or policy

directive, and is supported by the evidence in the record as a whole.

29 C.F.R. � 1614.305(c).

Based upon a thorough review of the record, it is the decision of

the Commission to concur with the final decision of the MSPB finding

no discrimination. The Commission finds that the MSPB's decision

constitutes a correct interpretation of the laws, rules, regulations,

and policies governing this matter and is supported by the evidence in

the record as a whole.

PETITIONER'S RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (W0408)

This decision of the Commission is final, and there is no further right of

administrative appeal from the Commission's decision. You have the right

to file a civil action in an appropriate United States District Court,

based on the decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board, within

thirty (30) calendar days of 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.

RIGHT TO REQUEST COUNSEL (Z1008)

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

August 13, 2009

__________________

Date

2

0320090073

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

Office of Federal Operations

P.O. Box 77960

Washington, DC 20013

3

0320090073