0120181442
09-26-2018
Daniell H.,1 Complainant, v. James N. Mattis, Secretary, Department of Defense (Department of Defense Education Activity), Agency.
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Daniell H.,1
Complainant,
v.
James N. Mattis,
Secretary,
Department of Defense
(Department of Defense Education Activity),
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120181442
Hearing No. 570-2015-00933X
Agency No. EU-FY14-151
DECISION
Complainant filed a timely appeal, pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.403, from the Agency's March 6, 2018, 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., and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), as amended, 29 U.S.C. � 621 et seq. For the following reasons, we AFFIRM the Agency's final order which fully implemented the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's Administrative Judge's (AJ) decision, which found that Complainant did not demonstrate that she was subjected to discrimination and harassment as she alleged.
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant was employed by the Agency as a Learning Impaired Specialist (Teacher) at the Naples High School in Naples, Italy. On November 1, 2014, Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging discrimination and continuing harassment by the Agency (Principal and Assistant Principal) on the bases of race (African-American), sex (female), age (over 40), and reprisal (Grievance filed on April 20, 2012), from April 2014 through October 24, 2014 when:
a. On April 25, 2014, a parent complained that Complainant made her daughter feel uncomfortable when Complainant questioned the student about not doing her homework assignments and the Principal micro-managed Complainant when he explained how the student should be treated when in her resource room;
b. In June 2014, a parent requested that the Assistant Principal not allow her daughter to be placed in Complainant's resource room and the child was subsequently removed without Complainant's knowledge;
c. On August 5, 2014, Complainant was assigned 9th grade High School Special Education (SPED) students in addition to SPED students from the 7th and 8th grade Middle School, which lessened the workload on White coworkers;
d. In the beginning of September 2014, a parent complained to the Principal that their daughter was uncomfortable in Complainant's resource room and the student was reassigned to a coworker without holding a meeting;
e. In early October 2014, during a weekly meeting, the Assistant Principal allowed a coworker to embarrass Complainant in front of her peers;
f. During the week of October 6-9, 2014, the Chief, Special Education and the Instructional Systems Specialist Autism Specialist, visited Naples HS and Complainant was not included in the out-briefing given to the Principal and Assistant Principal;
g. On October 23, 2014, during a Case Study Committee (CSC) meeting where she
sought advice regarding documentation of positive findings concerning a student,
the Assistant Principal chastised Complainant, for bringing up the matter in a business meeting, and allowed the coworker to inform the other attendees that Complainant's information was incorrect;
h. On October 23, 2014, the Assistant Principal and a coworker made an alternative change to a student's program and schedule without consulting Complainant;
i. On October 24, 2014, the Principal falsely accused Complainant of not taking care of an SPED student, and told her it was unacceptable that she did not know who the student was;
j. On November 21, 2014, the Assistant Principal allowed a provisional general education teacher, to question her role in his class;
k. On November 21, 2014, the Assistant Principal reviewed Complainant's workload and informed her that the aide seemed to be the only one talking with teachers and doing all the work and teachers were complaining that Complainant was not in the classroom collaborating with them.
Complainant also alleged that she was discriminated against on the bases of her race (African American), age (over 40), sex (female) and reprisal (grievance filed on April 20, 2012) when on September 23, 2014, the Assistant Principal notified her that she was not selected for a Sponsor/Basketball Coaching position, and instead, a White female, was selected.
After its investigation into the complaint, the Agency provided Complainant with a copy of the report of investigation and notice of right to request a hearing before an AJ. Complainant timely requested a hearing. The Agency submitted a motion for a decision without a hearing. The AJ subsequently issued a decision by summary judgment in favor of the Agency.
The Agency issued its final order adopting the AJ's finding that Complainant failed to prove discrimination as alleged. The instant appeal followed.
The Commission's regulations allow an AJ to grant summary judgment when he or she finds that there is no genuine issue of material fact. 29 C.F.R. � 1614.109(g). 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. In rendering this appellate decision, we must scrutinize the AJ's legal and factual conclusions, and the Agency's final order adopting them, de novo. See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405(a)(stating that a "decision on an appeal from an Agency's final action shall be based on a de novo review..."); see also Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive for 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 (EEO-MD-110), at Chap. 9, � VI.B. (as revised, August 5, 2015)(providing that an administrative judge's determination to issue a decision without a hearing, and the decision itself, will both be reviewed de novo).
In order to successfully oppose a decision by summary judgment, a complainant must identify, with specificity, facts in dispute either within the record or by producing further supporting evidence, and must further establish that such facts are material under applicable law. Such a dispute would indicate that a hearing is necessary to produce evidence to support a finding that the agency was motivated by discriminatory animus. Here, however, Complainant has failed to establish such a dispute. Even construing any inferences raised by the undisputed facts in favor of Complainant, a reasonable fact-finder could not find in Complainant's favor.
Upon careful review of the AJ's decision and the evidence of record, as well as the parties' arguments on appeal, we conclude that the AJ correctly determined that the preponderance of the evidence did not establish that Complainant was discriminated against by the Agency as alleged.
Accordingly, we AFFIRM the Agency's final order adopting the AJ's decision.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0617)
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. A party shall have twenty (20) calendar days of receipt of another party's timely request for reconsideration in which to submit a brief or statement in opposition. See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405; Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive for 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 (EEO MD-110), at Chap. 9 � VII.B (Aug. 5, 2015). All requests and arguments must be submitted to the Director, Office of Federal Operations, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Complainant's request may be submitted via regular mail to P.O. Box 77960, Washington, DC 20013, or by certified mail to 131 M Street, NE, Washington, DC 20507. 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 agency's request must be submitted in digital format via the EEOC's Federal Sector EEO Portal (FedSEP). See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.403(g). 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 (Z0815)
If you want to file a civil action but cannot pay the fees, costs, or security to do so, you may request permission from the court to proceed with the civil action without paying these fees or costs. Similarly, if you cannot afford an attorney to represent you in the civil action, you may request the court to appoint an attorney for you. You must submit the requests for waiver of court costs or appointment of an attorney directly to the court, not the Commission. The court has the sole discretion to grant or deny these types of requests. Such requests do not alter the time limits for filing a civil action (please read the paragraph titled Complainant's Right to File a Civil Action for the specific time limits).
FOR THE COMMISSION:
______________________________ Carlton M. Hadden's signature
Carlton M. Hadden, Director
Office of Federal Operations
__9/26/18________________
Date
1 This case has been randomly assigned a pseudonym which will replace Complainant's name when the decision is published to non-parties and the Commission's website.
---------------
------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
------------------------------------------------------------
2
0120181442
5
0120181442