Christine J. Cole, Complainant, Kenneth S. Apfel, Commissioner, Social Security Adminstration, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionMar 15, 2000
01986356 (E.E.O.C. Mar. 15, 2000)

01986356

03-15-2000

Christine J. Cole, Complainant, Kenneth S. Apfel, Commissioner, Social Security Adminstration, Agency.


Christine J. Cole v. Social Security Adminstration

01986356

March 15, 2000

Christine J. Cole, )

Complainant, )

) Appeal No. 01986356

) Agency No. 97-0272-SSA

)

Kenneth S. Apfel, )

Commissioner, )

Social Security Adminstration, )

Agency. )

)

DECISION

INTRODUCTION

On August 21, 1998, Christine J. Cole (the complainant) timely filed an

appeal with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the Commission)

from a final agency decision (FAD) dated July 17, 1998, concerning her

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> Complainant received the FAD on July 23, 1998. 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

The issue on appeal is whether the agency properly determined that

complainant had failed to prove that the agency discriminated against

her based on race, sex and retaliation when she was issued a three

day suspension.

BACKGROUND

Complainant was employed by the agency as a Claims Representative in the

agency's Selma, Alabama facility. Complainant initiated EEO Counseling

on January 17, 1997. She filed a formal complaint on March 11, 1997,

alleging discrimination on the bases of race (Black), sex (female)

and reprisal (prior EEO activity) when, in a letter dated January 10,

1997, she was harassed when the agency suspended her for three days,

effective January 28-30, 1997. The agency accepted the complaint for

investigation and processing. At the conclusion of the investigation, the

agency issued a copy of its investigative report and notified complainant

of her right to request an administrative hearing. After complainant

requested a decision on the record without a hearing, the agency issued

its FAD on July 17, 1998.

In its FAD, the agency found that the complainant had established

a prima facie case of race, sex and reprisal discrimination, but

had failed to establish a prima facie case of hostile environment

harassment because she was unable to demonstrate that she was subjected

to harassing conduct which was so severe that it interfered with her work

performance or created an intimidating, hostile or offensive environment.

The FAD further stated that complainant had failed to establish that the

legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason articulated by the agency for its

decision was a pretext for discrimination. Complainant timely appeals,

without comment.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

At the outset, we note that, while the complainant claimed in her

complaint that the suspension was a form of harassment of her by the

agency, this case is more properly analyzed under a disparate treatment

model of discrimination.

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, he 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 claims of discrimination, the agency

presented evidence that it suspended complainant following its receipt

of a report, in November 1996, by the agency's Office of Investigations

into improper behavior engaged in by complainant. Beginning in May

1996, the agency was conducting an inquiry and investigation into

whether complainant had improperly accessed the Social Security records

of a co-worker's (CO-1) mother. At the same time, the agency was

investigating CO-1 for whether CO-1 had improperly accessed the Social

Security records of several of her own relatives. After the completion

of the investigation, and taking into account the complainant's and

the CO-1's explanations for their actions, the agency decided that the

complainant should be suspended for three days and CO-1 for five days.

We find that the agency has articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory

reason for its action.

Since the agency articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for

its action, the burden returns to the complainant to demonstrate that the

agency's articulated reason was a pretext for discrimination. We find

that complainant has failed to do so. While complainant pointed out that

two other white co-workers had engaged in this same improper behavior,

accessing records for non-work related reasons, without being punished,

the agency provided acceptable explanations for its actions. First,

it noted that the white, female co-worker (CO-2) who had accessed her

relative's records had actually been suspended for one day. CO-2 had

mistakenly thought that she had a supervisor's permission to access

the records and was forthcoming about her reasons for engaging in the

action. In contrast, complainant consistently denied engaging in the

conduct, stating that she did not know that the records she had accessed

were those of CO-1's mother. The other co-worker noted by complainant,

a white male (CO-3), had not been punished, but at the time of the FAD

he was under investigation for the matter and the agency had not ruled

out any form of punishment. Therefore, the agency's determination

that complainant failed to establish that she was discriminated against

was correct.

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

STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL

RECONSIDERATION (M1199)

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). 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 15, 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.