Dotty C.,1 Complainant,v.Kevin Haugrud, Acting Secretary, Department of the Interior (Bureau of Land Management), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Feb 28, 2017

0120143241 (E.E.O.C. Feb. 28, 2017)

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

Dotty C.,1
Complainant,

v.

Kevin Haugrud,
Acting Secretary,
Department of the Interior
(Bureau of Land Management),
Agency.

Appeal No. 0120143241

Hearing No. 570-2010-01017X

Agency No. BLM-09-0433

DECISION

Complainant filed an appeal, pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.403(a), from the Agency’s
September 22, 2011, 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. For the following reasons, the
Commission AFFIRMS the Agency’s final order finding no discrimination.

BACKGROUND

At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a Management and
Program Analyst, GS-13, in the Division of Evaluations and Management Services at the
Agency’s facility in Washington, D.C. On October 2, 2009, Complainant filed an EEO
complaint alleging that the Agency discriminated against her on the basis of race (African-
American) when on August, 7, 2009, management reassigned her duties as co-lead analyst for
a general management evaluation (GME) to other employees on her team.

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 Equal Employment

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.
0120143241

2
Opportunity Commission Administrative Judge (AJ). Complainant requested a hearing. The
AJ found that, after viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to Complainant, a decision
without a hearing was appropriate as there were no genuine issues of material fact in dispute.
The AJ issued a decision without a hearing on September 14, 2011, finding no discrimination.
The Agency subsequently issued a final order adopting the AJ’s finding that Complainant failed
to prove that the Agency subjected her to discrimination as alleged. Complainant makes no
arguments on appeal.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

As an initial matter we note that, as this is an appeal from a final decision issued without a
hearing, pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.110(b), the Agency’s decision is subject to de novo
review by the Commission. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.405(a). 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 102, 105 (1st Cir. 1988). A fact is “material” if it has the potential to
affect the outcome of the case.

After a careful review of the record, the Commission finds that a decision without a hearing
was appropriate, as no genuine dispute of material fact exists. 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 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, non-
discriminatory 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 (2000).

Here, we find that assuming, arguendo, Complainant established a prima facie case of race
discrimination, the Agency nonetheless articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its
0120143241

3
actions. Specifically, the record shows that in March 2009, Complainant’s supervisor (S1)
assigned her to serve as co-lead for the minerals and realty directorate GME team, with S1
serving as the other co-lead. The record also shows that although GMEs would normally be led
by a GS-14 Senior Management Analyst, at the relevant time there was no employee in that
position, so S1 chose to assign co-leads. On June 2, 2009, after a conference call had to be
rescheduled, S1 determined that the she needed to grant two additional team members access to
critical documents and reports because they did “not have sufficient time remaining to
complete all the work without help.” The record also shows, however, that S1 sent an email to
the team, dated June 5, 2009, stating that Complainant maintained her position as co-lead for
the GME. We concur with the AJ’s finding that Complainant failed to proffer any evidence to
show that the Agency’s articulated reasons for reassigning some of her duties, namely that the
team would not have met their deadline otherwise, was pretext for unlawful race
discrimination.

CONCLUSION

We find that viewing the record evidence in a light most favorable to Complainant, there are
no genuine issues of material fact. We further find that the AJ appropriately issued a decision
without a hearing finding no discrimination. Therefore, we discern no basis to disturb the AJ’s
decision and the Agency’s final order finding no discrimination is AFFIRMED.

STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0416)

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 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. The requests 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
0120143241

4
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 (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

February 28, 2017
Date