Christopher S. Reyes, Appellant,v.Kenneth S. Apfel, Commissioner, Social Security Administration, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionJan 15, 1999
01975743 (E.E.O.C. Jan. 15, 1999)

01975743

01-15-1999

Christopher S. Reyes, Appellant, v. Kenneth S. Apfel, Commissioner, Social Security Administration, Agency.


Christopher S. Reyes v. Social Security Administration

01975743

January 15, 1999

Christopher S. Reyes, )

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Appeal No. 01975743

) Agency No. SSA-204-95

Kenneth S. Apfel, ) Hearing No. 340-96-3519X

Commissioner, )

Social Security Administration, )

Agency. )

___________________________________)

DECISION

On July 16, 1997, Christopher S. Reyes (appellant) timely appealed the

final decision of the Social Security Administration (agency), dated

June 26, 1997, which concluded he had not been discriminated against

in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended,

42 U.S.C. � 2000e et seq. In his complaint, appellant alleged that

agency officials had discriminated against him based on his national

origin (Hispanic), sex (male), and reprisal for engaging in prior EEO

activity, when he was terminated from his probationary position as

a Service Representative Trainee (SRT)/Contact Representative, GS-6,

effective January 26, 1995. This appeal is accepted in accordance with

the provisions of EEOC Order No. 960.001.

The record establishes that appellant was hired by the agency as a

Contact Representative on April 3, 1994, at the West Covina, California

office subject to a one-year probationary training period. The West

Covina Branch Manager (Hispanic female) had personally recruited appellant

to work for the agency when he was a college student. When he applied

to the agency, he completed a standard SF-171 application form, on which

it was later learned that he failed to list approximately twenty-one

previous employers.

Appellant worked in the office for about three months before he began his

formal training. He was, however, provided two mentors (Japanese/Black

female and Hawaiian/Caucasian/Chinese/Black female). In his first

quarterly progress report, issued in July 1994, appellant was rated

as satisfactory on the few duties he had performed up to that date.

However, around the same time, his supervisor (Black female) brought

to his attention some problems he had with timeliness and the fact

that it had been noticed that he had difficulty staying awake during

his orientation sessions because of a second, part-time job he held.

Appellant attended formal training from July 25, 1994 to October 14, 1994.

In his second quarterly review, covering this training period, appellant

was rated as satisfactory although it was noted that, "It appeared from

your behavior in class that we did not always have your full attention.

You need to put more effort not into just doing the job, but doing the

job well."

Upon his return from training in October 1994, appellant had the daily

assistance of both his mentors. On December 19, 1994, appellant's

supervisor conducted a desk audit in order to rate his work on each of the

written generic job tasks in his performance plan. Based on this review,

she prepared a third quarterly progress review in which she informed

appellant that she would be recommending his termination based on his

inability to demonstrate acceptable work performance. Specifically, she

stated appellant had significant problems meeting deadlines and getting

his work done quickly and efficiently. In addition, she found that he was

very disorganized, despite being instructed on how to organize his work.

She further said that he was not responsive to the assistance and training

offered him by his mentors.

In the meantime, the Branch Manager learned that an FBI background check

on appellant had revealed that appellant had a record of two arrests

for smuggling steroids over the U.S./Mexican border. When the Branch

Manager questioned appellant, he said he was never arrested, but only

issued a citation with a fine which his father paid. He offered to

produce his father's canceled check as proof. However, he never did.

At the same time, she informed appellant that they had also learned

that he had failed to list many of his previous employers on his SF-121.

She asked him to submit an amended application, which he also never did.

Effective January 26, 1995, appellant was terminated for failure to

demonstrate effective performance and failure to submit the amended

SF-171.

On January 30, 1995, appellant filed a formal EEO complaint with the

agency, alleging that the agency had discriminated against him as

referenced above.<1> The agency accepted the complaint and conducted

an investigation. At the conclusion of the investigation, appellant

requested an administrative hearing before an Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission (EEOC) administrative judge (AJ).

On May 22, 1997, following a hearing at which five witnesses testified,

the AJ issued a decision concluding that no discrimination had occurred

in this matter. In that decision, the AJ found that appellant failed to

produce sufficient evidence to prove that the agency discriminated against

him on any discriminatory basis or unlawfully retaliated against him.

In reaching this finding, the AJ rejected the comparatives cited by

appellant because they were either not on probation or had different job

responsibilities because they were not SRT/Contact Representatives. Based

on this conclusion, the AJ found that appellant failed to show that he

was treated more harshly than similarly situated employees outside his

protected groups. With regard to appellant's retaliation claim, the

AJ also found no prima facie case because she found that the evidence

established that agency management proposed appellant's termination at

least eleven days before appellant's first contact with an EEO counselor.

On June 26, 1997, the agency adopted the findings and conclusions of

the AJ and issued a final decision finding no discrimination. It is

from this decision that appellant now appeals.

After a careful review of the record in its entirety, the Commission finds

that the AJ's recommended decision sets forth the relevant facts and

properly analyzes the case using the appropriate regulations, policies

and laws. Based on the evidence of record, the Commission discerns

no basis to disturb the AJ's finding of no discrimination. Nothing

proffered by appellant on appeal differs significantly from the

arguments raised before, and given full consideration by, the AJ.

Although appellant has argued on appeal that he did establish a prima

facie case of discrimination and/or retaliation, the Commission finds

that even if that were true, any initial inference of discrimination was

successfully rebutted by the agency with its articulation of legitimate,

nondiscriminatory reasons for the actions taken. After weighing the

evidence of record, the Commission concludes that appellant failed to

meet his burden of proving that the reasons given by the agency for its

actions were untrue or were a pretext for discrimination or retaliation.

Accordingly, it is the decision of the Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission to AFFIRM the agency's final decision which adopted the AJ's

finding of no national origin, sex or reprisal 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. � l6l4.604(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. 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 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:

Jan 15, 1999

__________________ _______________________________

DATE Ronnie Blumenthal, Director

Office of Federal Operations

1 Appellant's retaliation claim was based on the fact that he contacted

an EEO counselor on December 12, 1994, complaining of "harassment" when

he was given a counseling memo for taking too much time with a client.

The next day, he withdrew his request for counseling. However, on

December 15, 1994, the EEO manager spoke with the Branch Manager about

appellant's perceptions that he was being treated unfairly.