E. Bruce Garner, Complainant,v.Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner, Social Security Administration, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionSep 7, 2007
0120062321 (E.E.O.C. Sep. 7, 2007)

0120062321

09-07-2007

E. Bruce Garner, Complainant, v. Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner, Social Security Administration, Agency.


E. Bruce Garner,

Complainant,

v.

Michael J. Astrue,

Commissioner,

Social Security Administration,

Agency.

Appeal No. 01200623211

Agency No. 03-0467-SSA

Hearing No. 110-2005-00330X-MDL

DECISION

Complainant filed an appeal from the agency's final action dated February

8, 2006, finding no discrimination with regard to his complaint. In his

complaint, dated September 17, 2003, complainant alleged discrimination

based on age (over 40), disability (HIV disease), sex (male), race

(White), and sexual orientation (homosexual) when he was involuntarily

removed from his GS-235-14 Regional Training Director (RTD) (Supervisor

Human Resources Specialist) position and reassigned to a GS-343-14

Project Manager (PM) position, effective July 7, 2003.

Upon completion of the investigation of the complaint, complainant

requested a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). On January

9, 2006, the AJ issued a decision without holding a hearing, finding no

discrimination. The agency's final action implemented the AJ's decision.

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.

The Commission finds that grant of summary judgment was appropriate,

as no genuine dispute of material fact exists. In this case, the AJ

determined that, assuming arguendo that complainant had established a

prima facie case of discrimination, the agency articulated legitimate,

nondiscriminatory reasons for the alleged reassignment. Specifically,

the agency stated that an identified employee filed a separate EEO

complaint and during a hearing of that complaint, the agency's personnel

office determined that at the time of complainant's selection to RTD,

his application reflected that he was not minimally qualified for that

position since he did not have the specialized experience, i.e., one

year in grade of training and career development at the GS-13 level.

It was also determined that a number of other applicants were also not

minimally qualified for the RTD position at that time. In order to

resolve the identified employee's EEO complaint, the agency ultimately

decided to reassign complainant to the PM position and give the RTD

position to the identified employee.

Furthermore, complainant's supervisor stated that while complainant

was in the RTD position, he had communication problems with one of the

training teams that he supervised. In order to resolve these complaints

from the team members, two mediations were held but were not successful

in resolving the problems. Complainant does not dispute the supervisor's

statements. In fact, complainant admitted that he had problems getting

along with one of his four teams.

After a review of the record, the AJ determined that complainant failed

to show that he was treated differently from any similarly situated

employees. The AJ noted and we agree that complainant's alleged

discrimination based on sexual orientation is not within the EEOC's

jurisdiction. It is noted that the Commission does not address in this

decision whether complainant is a qualified individual with a disability.

It is also noted that complainant has not claimed that he was denied a

reasonable accommodation. Furthermore, there is no indication that he

was required to work beyond his medical restrictions.

Accordingly, the agency's final action is hereby AFFIRMED.

STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL

RECONSIDERATION (M0701)

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), 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 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 (S0900)

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

09/07/2007

__________________

Date

1 Due to a new data system, this case has been redesignated with the

above referenced appeal number.

??

??

??

??

4

0120062321

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

Office of Federal Operations

P. O. Box 19848

Washington, D.C. 20036