Complainant,v.Chuck Hagel, Secretary, Department of Defense (Department of Defense Education Activity), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Apr 4, 2014

0120120617 (E.E.O.C. Apr. 4, 2014)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013

,
Complainant,

v.

Chuck Hagel,
Secretary,
Department of Defense
(Department of Defense Education Activity),
Agency.

Appeal No. 0120120617

Agency No. EUFY10108

DECISION
On November 15, 2011, Complainant filed an appeal from the Agency’s October 6, 2011 final
decision 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. The Commission deems the appeal timely and accepts it for de
novo review pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.405(a). For the following reasons, the Commission
AFFIRMS the Agency’s final decision.

BACKGROUND
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a Science Teacher
at the Agency’s Vilseck High School, a part of the Department of Defense Dependent Schools
(Europe), in Bavaria District, Germany. At the end of the school year in June 2010, all
teachers were instructed to have their classrooms cleared out and ready for cleaning at the end
of the school day on June 18, 2010. Problems arose with Complainant’s classroom on June
18, 2010, and she was required to return to work on June 21, 2010, to complete final
preparation for cleaning. On September 8, 2010, Complainant filed an EEO complaint
alleging that the Agency discriminated against her on the bases of race (African-American) and
in reprisal for prior protected EEO activity under when she was required to work on a non-
duty day without compensation.

At the conclusion of the investigation, the Agency provided Complainant with a copy of the
report of investigation and notice of her right to request a hearing before an EEOC
Administrative Judge (AJ). In accordance with Complainant’s request, the Agency issued a
final decision pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.110(b). The decision concluded that Complainant
failed to prove that the Agency subjected her to discrimination as alleged.
0120120617

2

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
To prevail in a disparate treatment claim such as this, Complainant must satisfy the three-part
evidentiary scheme fashioned by the Supreme Court in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green,
411 U.S. 792 (1973). She must generally establish a prima facie case by demonstrating that he
was subjected to an adverse employment action under circumstances that would support an
inference of discrimination. Furnco Constr. Co. v. Waters, 438 U.S. 567, 576 (1978). The
prima facie inquiry may be dispensed with where the Agency has articulated legitimate and
nondiscriminatory reasons for its conduct. See U.S. Postal Serv. Bd. of Governors v. Aikens,
460 U.S. 711, 713-17 (1983). To ultimately prevail, Complainant must prove, by a
preponderance of the evidence, that the Agency's explanation is a pretext for discrimination.
Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (2000); St. Mary's Honor Ctr. v.
Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 519 (1993); Tex. Dep't of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine

, 450 U.S. 248, 256
(1981).
Here, the Agency explains that Complainant was required to report for duty on Monday, June
21, 2010, following the close of the school year because she had failed to complete end-of-the-
year cleanup of her classroom by close of business on the previous Friday, June 18, 2010, the
last day of the school year. Items in Complainant’s classroom were left stacked on student
tables and microscopes were left unsecured. Report of Investigation (ROI) at 19-20; 165-66.
This is a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the Agency’s action.

Complainant does not dispute that the cleanup of her classroom was not complete by the end of
the last day of school. She contends, however, that other teachers, who were White, also
failed adequately to clean up their classrooms for the end of the year but were not required to
return to school to complete the cleanup without compensation as was Complainant. ROI at
161B. However, the evidence shows that, for the most part, items left in the classrooms in
question were allowed to remain in place because they were not valuable and were in locations
that would not interfere with the work of the summer cleaning crews. ROI at 166. In one case
where further cleanup was necessary, the teacher responsible was required to work without
compensation to rectify the problem. Id.

Complainant has failed to prove that the Agency’s
explanation for its actions was a pretext for discriminatory animus. For the foregoing reasons,
the Agency’s final decision is AFFIRMED.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION

(M0610)
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:

0120120617

3
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), at 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

(S0610)
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

(Z0610)
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
0120120617

4
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

Date
April 4, 2014