Claudia Phillips, Complainant,v.Daniel R. Glickman, Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionMar 7, 2000
01971126 (E.E.O.C. Mar. 7, 2000)

01971126

03-07-2000

Claudia Phillips, Complainant, v. Daniel R. Glickman, Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Agency.


Claudia Phillips v. Department of Agriculture

01971126

March 7, 2000

Claudia Phillips, )

Complainant, )

) Appeal No. 01971126

v. ) Agency No. 940527

Daniel R. Glickman, )

Secretary, )

Department of Agriculture, )

Agency. )

)

______________________________)

DECISION

Claudia Phillips filed a timely appeal of a final agency decision (FAD)

concerning her complaint of unlawful employment discrimination on the

bases of race (Black) and reprisal (prior EEO activity), in violation of

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. � 2000e

et seq.<1> Complainant alleges she was discriminated against when: (1)

she was placed on leave restriction, and (2) she was not selected for

the position of Accounting Technician GS-525-6. The appeal is accepted

in accordance with EEOC Order No. 960.001. For the following reasons,

the agency's decision is AFFIRMED.

The record reveals that during the relevant time period, complainant was

employed as a Research Clerk GS-503-4, at the agency's National Finance

Center, Travel and Transportation Section, Administrative Services Branch.

Complainant alleged that she was unfairly placed on leave restriction

because a white employee with a similar leave record was not put on

leave restriction. She further alleged that she was not selected for the

position of Accounting Technician because a supervisor gave a racially

biased accounting of her employment history to the selecting official

which resulted in her not being selected. Lastly, complainant alleged

that a supervisor (S1) accused complainant of making threats on S1's

life in reprisal for her filing an EEO complaint.

Believing she was a victim of discrimination, complainant sought EEO

counseling and, subsequently, filed a complaint on May 27, 1994. At the

conclusion of the investigation, complainant requested that the agency

issue a final agency decision.

The agency concluded that complainant established a prima facie case

of race discrimination on the issue of her non-selection because she

demonstrated that she was qualified for, applied for, but was not

selected for the position of Accounting Technician, and that a white

employee was selected.

The agency concluded that complainant failed to establish a prima

facie case of race discrimination with respect to her placement on

leave restriction because two white employees had also been issued leave

restriction letters. The agency also concluded complainant did not show

that its legitimate non-discriminatory reasons for placing her on leave

restriction were a pretext for discrimination.

Issues Regarding the Administrative Process

On appeal, complainant makes no new contentions except to elaborate on

her perception that the EEO counselor exhibited undue bias during the

counseling phase of the process. The Commission has specific instructions

set forth in the EEOC- Management Directive (MD) 110 regarding the agency

EEO counseling process which was recently updated on November 9, 1999.

Specifically, the EEOC-MD 110 instructs agencies in such areas as

ensuring the independence of their EEO offices and in avoiding even the

appearance of conflicts of interest. See, EEOC-MD110 p. 1-2.

Complainant also pointed out that the agency delayed issuing a final

decision a total of 547 days (from April 5, 1995 the date of complainant's

request for a decision to October 23, 1996, the date of the final

decision). Under our regulations, specifically, 64 Fed. Reg. 37657,

July 12, 1999 (to be codified at 29 C.F.R. �1614.110(b)), the agency is

required to issue its decision within 60 days of complainant's request.

We note the agency failed to comment or to indicate what actions it took

to address the inordinate amount of time it took in issuing a decision.

Under our new procedures, information regarding dissatisfaction with the

processing of a complaint and the agency's response to such are to be made

part of the complaint file so that reviewing authorities can determine

whether the agency's actions had a material affect on the processing of

the complaint . Preamble to the Regulations 64 Fed. Reg. 37646, July

12, 1999; EEOC-MD 110 p.5-25; See also, Hesken v. Department of State,

EEOC No. 01952462, (July 2, 1996)( the failure to issue a decision within

60 days did not form a sufficient basis for a finding of discrimination.)

Complainant's Allegations

After a careful review of the record, based on McDonnell Douglas v. Green,

411 U.S. 792 (1973), Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine,

450 U.S.248 (1981); United States Postal Service Board of Governors v.

Aikens, 460 U.S. 711, (1983) and Hochstadt v. Worcester Foundation for

Experimental Biology, Inc., 425 F. Supp. 318 (D. Mass. 1976), aff'd

545 F.2d 222 (1st Cir. 1976) (applying McDonnell Douglas to retaliation

cases), we find that Complainant has made out a prima facie case of race

discrimination on both the issue of her placement on leave restriction

and her non-selection for the position of Accounting Technician.

We also find that complainant established a prima facie case of reprisal

because she engaged in EEO activity by contacting an EEO counselor, the

supervisor in question was aware that she had contacted an EEO counselor

and complainant suffered an adverse employment action reasonably close

to the time of the protected activity.<2>

The Commission, however, finds that complainant failed to present

evidence that more likely than not, the agency's articulated reasons

for its actions on all three issues were a pretext for discrimination.

In reaching this conclusion, we note that on the issue of complainant's

leave restriction, complainant failed to establish her restrictions

were discriminatory in light of the supervisor's (S2)(White, no prior

EEO activity) restrictions on others, both Black and White with similar

records.

On the issue of the complainant's non-selection, complainant conceded that

the selecting official's (SO) (Black, no prior EEO activity) selection was

not discriminatory, but she contends that the information given to the

SO was racially biased causing her not to be selected. The Commission

does not agree with complainant because, as stated above, her leave

restriction was not discriminatory. We further note that complainant

failed to refute the fact that the selectee<3> had a better performance

appraisal and, despite complainant's representation otherwise, had an

equivalent score on the ranking factors.

Complainant alleges that she suffered reprisal in the form of written

statements made by S1 and a witness outlining complainant's threats made

during the EEO complaint process. We disagree that S1's actions were in

reprisal for Complainant's EEO activity because the record reflects that

S1 acted in reaction to the witness's report to S1 of complainant's

statements. The witness's version of complainant's statement -

"do you know how to dodge bullets?...well you had better practice,

because bullets are going to fly" - was such that a reasonable person

would be threatened. We are persuaded that the supervisor's reliance

on the witness's interpretation of complainant's statements rather than

complainant's protected EEO activity prompted the supervisor to report

and make a record of the incident.

Therefore, after a careful review of the record, including complainant's

contentions on appeal, the agency's response, and arguments and evidence

not specifically addressed in this decision, we AFFIRM the final decision.

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:

3/7/00 ____________________________

DATE Carlton 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 after it was mailed. I certify

that this decision was mailed to complainant, complainant's representative

(if applicable), and the agency on:

Date Equal Employment Assistant

1On 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.

2The Commission makes this finding sua sponte because the agency did

not decide the issue of reprisal even though it accepted the issue for

investigation.

3The record reflects that the first selectee (Black, no prior EEO

activity) similarly had a better performance appraisal but was hired by

another unit.