Doc Adams, Complainant,v.Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionAug 7, 2000
01983099 (E.E.O.C. Aug. 7, 2000)

01983099

08-07-2000

Doc Adams, Complainant, v. Agency.


Doc Adams v. Smithsonian Institution

01983099

August 7, 2000

.

Doc Adams,

Complainant,

v.

Agency.

Appeal No. 01983099

Agency Nos. 97-13-112696;

97-29-041197; 97-41-061697

DECISION

Complainant timely initiated an appeal from a final agency decision

(FAD) concerning his complaints of unlawful employment discrimination

in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended,

42 U.S.C. � 2000e et seq.; and the Age Discrimination in Employment

Act of 1967, as amended, 29 U.S.C. � 621 et seq.<1> The appeal is

accepted pursuant to 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659 (1999)(to be codified

at 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405). Complainant alleged that he was discriminated

against on the bases of race (African-American), religion (Seventh Day

Adventist), sex (male), age (42), and in reprisal for prior EEO activity,

when: (1) the Security Manager of another agency museum telephoned the

complainant's Security Manager to complain of complainant's presence in

the other facility; (2) he was not selected for the position of Training

Instructor, GS-1712-7/9; (3) he was issued a Letter of Counseling

regarding an incident with a visitor; (4) his supervisor denied him the

opportunity for a thirty-day temporary training assignment; and (5) his

supervisor denied him the opportunity to temporarily act as Sergeant or

receive training to operate the control room.

The record reveals that during the relevant time, complainant was

employed as a Security Guard, GS-05, at the agency's Hirshhorn Museum and

Sculpture Garden facility. Believing the agency had committed unlawful

discrimination, complainant sought EEO counseling and subsequently filed

formal complaints on November 26, 1996, November 27, 1996, February

12, 1997, April 11, 1997, and June 11, 1997. The complaints were

consolidated for investigation. At the conclusion of the investigation,

complainant was informed of his right to request a hearing before an EEOC

Administrative Judge or alternatively, to receive a final decision by the

agency. Complainant requested that the agency issue a final decision.

In its FAD, the agency concluded that complainant failed to establish a

prima facie of case of discrimination for any of the issues raised in his

complaints. Nevertheless, the FAD concluded that the agency articulated

legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions and that complainant

did not establish that more likely than not, the agency's articulated

reasons were a pretext to mask unlawful discrimination or retaliation.

On appeal, complainant requests a hearing for the twelve complaints

he filed against the agency between May 22, 1996 and June 16, 1997.

Complainant also contends that the agency did not process his complaints

in a timely fashion and failed to adequate investigate the complaints.

The agency requests that we affirm its FAD.

Applying the standards set forth in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green,

411 U.S. 792 (1973) and Loeb v. Textron, 600 F.2d 1003 (1st Cir. 1979),

the Commission agrees with the agency that complainant failed to establish

a prima facie case of race, sex, religion, age or reprisal discrimination.

The record does not reveal that complainant was singled out for treatment

different from that accorded persons otherwise similarly situated who

are not members of his protective classes. Likewise, we find that the

record does not reveal any nexus between his prior EEO activity and

the alleged adverse actions. We further find that complainant failed

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

reasons for its actions were a pretext for discrimination. In reaching

this conclusion, we note that, other than his bare allegations,

complainant failed to provide any credible evidence demonstrating that

any of the agency's actions were motivated because of his membership in

any of the identified protected groups or his prior EEO participation.

Finally, we note that, at the end of the investigation, complainant was

informed of his right to request a hearing before an EEOC Administrative

Judge or alternatively, to receive a final decision by the agency.

Since complainant elected to receive a final decision by the agency,

he cannot now receive a hearing on the same matters. 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 FAD.

STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL

RECONSIDERATION (M0300)

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

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); 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

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).

COMPLAINANTS' RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (S0400)

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:

______________________________

Carlton M. Hadden, Director

Office of Federal Operations

August 7, 2000

1 On 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.