Claudette M. Culp, Complainant,v.Eric K. Shinseki, Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionJan 30, 2009
0120083593 (E.E.O.C. Jan. 30, 2009)

0120083593

01-30-2009

Claudette M. Culp, Complainant, v. Eric K. Shinseki, Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs, Agency.


Claudette M. Culp,

Complainant,

v.

Eric K. Shinseki,

Secretary,

Department of Veterans Affairs,

Agency.

Appeal No. 0120083593

Agency No. 200L-0005-2006103826

Hearing No. 420-2007-00202X

DECISION

Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405, the Commission accepts complainant's

appeal from the agency's August 14, 2008 final order concerning her 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., Section 501 of the Rehabilitation

Act of 1973 (Rehabilitation Act), as amended, 29 U.S.C. � 791 et seq.,

and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), as amended,

29 U.S.C. � 621 et seq.

Complainant alleged that the agency discriminated against her on the bases

of disability (lumbar disc displacement with lumbar spinal fusion), age

(58), and in reprisal for prior EEO activity when:

on September 26, 2006, she learned that she was not selected for the

position of Information Technology Specialist, GS-2210-11, under Vacancy

Announcement Number 06-121.

The Administrative Judge (AJ) assigned to the case granted the agency's

motion for a decision without a hearing. The AJ found that complainant

had not established a prima facie case of disability and reprisal

discrimination.1 Regarding complainant's disability claim, the AJ

found that complainant failed to show that she is an individual with a

disability and that she did not submit sufficient evidence showing that

her medical conditions substantially limited any major life activity at

the time of the alleged discriminatory event. Regarding complainant's

reprisal claim, the AJ found that complainant did not show a nexus or

casual connection between her prior protected activity and the instant

matter.

The AJ found, however, that complainant established a prima facie case

of age discrimination because the three selectees were over 40 years

old but younger than complainant. The AJ nevertheless found that the

agency had articulated legitimate, non-discriminatory explanations

for complainant's non-selection. More specifically, the AJ noted that

according to the Selecting Official (SO), he did not select complainant

for position of Information Technology Specialist because she was not

the strongest candidate. The AJ further noted that the SO stated that

all candidates, including complainant, were qualified and considered good

candidates but the three selectees were better qualified for the subject

positions.2 The AJ indicated that complainant failed to show that her

qualifications were plainly superior to those of the selectees. The AJ

indicated that the agency had broad discretion to carry out personnel

decisions and they should not be second guessed by reviewing authority

absent evidence of an unlawful motivation. Finally, the AJ found that

complainant had not shown the agency's proffered explanation to be a

pretext for unlawful discrimination.

After a review of the record in its entirety, including consideration

of all statements submitted on appeal, it is the decision of the Equal

Employment Opportunity Commission to AFFIRM the agency's final order,

because the Administrative Judge's issuance of a decision without a

hearing was appropriate and a preponderance of the record evidence does

not establish that unlawful discrimination occurred.

STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL

RECONSIDERATION (M1208)

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 29

C.F.R. � 1614.405; Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive for

29 C.F.R. Part 1614 (EEO MD-110), 9-18 (November 9, 1999). All requests

and arguments must be submitted to the Director, Office of Federal

Operations, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, P.O. Box 77960,

Washington, DC 20013. 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 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 (S0408)

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 (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

January 30, 2009

__________________

Date

1 The Commission presumes for purposes of analysis only, and without so

finding, that complainant is an individual with a disability.

2 The record reflects that one of the three selectees declined the

agency's offer of employment.

??

??

??

??

2

0120083593

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

Office of Federal Operations

P.O. Box 77960

Washington, DC 20013

4

0120083593

5

0120083593