0120123245
02-08-2013
Cynthia E. Guillory, Complainant, v. Ray Mabus, Secretary, Department of the Navy, Agency.
Cynthia E. Guillory,
Complainant,
v.
Ray Mabus,
Secretary,
Department of the Navy,
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120123245
Hearing No. 570200100820X
Agency No. 100002701803
DECISION
On August 16, 2012, Complainant filed an appeal from the Agency's June 1, 2012, 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. The Commission deems the appeal timely and accepts it pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405(a).
BACKGROUND
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a Human Resources Specialist at the Agency's facility in Quantico, Virginia.
On May 28, 2010, Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging that the Agency discriminated against her on the basis of race (African-American) when she was not selected for the position of Human Resources Specialist, YA-0201-02, in June/July 2007.
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). Complainant timely requested a hearing. When the Complainant did not object, the AJ assigned to the case granted the Agency's May 11, 2012 motion for a decision without a hearing and issued a decision by summary judgment on June 1, 2012, in favor of the Agency.
The record indicates that this matter initially came before the Commission in Guillory v. Department of the Navy, EEOC Appeal No. 0120103331 (February 11, 2011). Therein, Complainant appealed the Agency's dismissal of her complaint for untimely EEO counselor contact. In the February 11, 2011 decision, we determined that the Agency's dismissal was improper. Specifically, we found that although Complainant failed to contact an EEO Counselor regarding her 2007 non-selection within forty-five (45) days as required by EEOC regulations, the circumstances surrounding Complainant learning of the non-selection warranted a waiver of the relevant time limitations for EEO contact. In that regard, we found that Complainant's contact of an EEO Counselor regarding her 2007 non-selection was timely. The complaint was remanded to the Agency for further processing.
In the instant matter, the Administrative Judge assigned to the case found that the investigative record was adequately developed and that there existed no genuine issues of material fact. The AJ determined that Complainant applied for the position at issue on June 1, 2007. The record discloses that the job duties included building officer promotion boards, accomplishment of lineal team mission for officer promotions; all other actions for monthly officer promotions; and research on promotion law and policy. The record indicates that two applicants, Complainant and the selectee applied for the position. The Agency determined that it would not hold interviews, but instead would base its decision on the resumes and statements of the knowledge, skills and abilities (KSAs) of the two candidates.
The AJ found that the Agency articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for not selecting Complainant for the position. Specifically, the record indicates that by her own admission, Complainant did not have experience with any of the areas required by the position. Complainant was found to be an excellent worker, but she had no prior experience in officer promotions. Complainant's experience was working in enlisted promotions. In fact, the record indicates that Complainant responded to each of the KSAs by stating that she had no experience in the areas listed. By contrast, the selectee had experience working as the Lineal/Quality Control Assistant in the officer promotions branch and in that position served as the assistant for the Human Resources Specialist position at issue herein. The selectee had work experience with Title 10 of the U.S. Code, officer lineal precedence, and promotion plans. The AJ found that, unlike Complainant, the selectee responded directly to the KSAs listed in the vacancy announcement with actual experience from her job. Therefore, the AJ concluded that the Agency demonstrated that it was undisputed that the selectee was better qualified for the position than Complainant. As such, the AJ found that Complainant failed to show that the Agency's reasons for its actions were a pretext for discrimination.
The Agency issued its final order adopting the AJ's decision concluding that no discrimination had been proven. The instant appeal followed.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
We must determine whether it was appropriate for the AJ to have issued a decision without a hearing on this record. The Commission's regulations allow an AJ to issue a decision without a hearing when he or she finds that there is no genuine issue of material fact. 29 C.F.R. � 1614.109(g). This regulation is patterned after the summary judgment procedure set forth in Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that summary judgment is appropriate where a court determines that, given the substantive legal and evidentiary standards that apply to the case, there exists no genuine issue of material fact. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986). In ruling on a motion for summary judgment, a court's function is not to weigh the evidence but rather to determine whether there are genuine issues for trial. Id. at 249. The evidence of the non-moving party must be believed at the summary judgment stage and all justifiable inferences must be drawn in the non-moving party's favor. Id. at 255. An issue of fact is "genuine" if the evidence is such that a reasonable fact finder could find in favor of the non-moving party. Celotex v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986); Oliver v. Digital Equip. Corp., 846 F.2d 103, 105 (1st Cir. 1988). A fact is "material" if it has the potential to affect the outcome of the case. If a case can only be resolved by weighing conflicting evidence, issuing a decision without holding a hearing is not appropriate.
Upon review of the record we find that the AJ properly found that the instant complaint was suitable for summary judgment. The record is adequately developed and there are no identified disputes of material fact.
To prevail in a disparate treatment claim, complainant must satisfy the three-part evidentiary scheme fashioned by the Supreme Court in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). Complainant must initially establish a prima facie case by demonstrating that he or she was subjected to an adverse employment action under circumstances that would support an inference of discrimination. Furnco Construction Co. v. Waters, 438 U.S. 567, 576 (1978). Proof of a prima facie case will vary depending on the facts of the particular case. McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 804 n. 14. 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). To ultimately prevail, Complainant must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the agency's explanation is pretextual. Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 143 (2000); St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 519 (1993).
In this case, we find that Complainant has not shown that she was discriminated against as alleged. Assuming that Complainant established a prima facie case of race discrimination with respect to the Agency's non-selection, we find that the Agency articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions. We find that Complainant did not show by a preponderance of the evidence that the Agency's reasons for its actions were untrue and a pretext to mask discrimination. We find no basis upon which to disturb the AJ's Decision and find that a decision without a hearing was properly issued in this case.
Based on a thorough review of the record and the contentions on appeal, including those not specifically addressed herein, we AFFIRM the Agency's Final Order, finding no discrimination.
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:
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 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
February 8, 2013
__________________
Date
2
0120123245
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
2
0120123245