Eulalia B.,1 Complainant,v.Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner, Social Security Administration, Agency.Download PDFEqual Employment Opportunity CommissionMar 11, 20160120142081 (E.E.O.C. Mar. 11, 2016) Copy Citation U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Eulalia B.,1 Complainant, v. Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner, Social Security Administration, Agency. Appeal No. 0120142081 Agency No. PHI-13-0361-SSA DECISION Complainant appeals to the Commission from the Agency’s final decision dated May 5, 2014, finding no discrimination concerning her 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, we AFFIRM the Agency’s final decision finding no discrimination. BACKGROUND In her complaint, dated May 21, 2013, Complainant alleged discrimination in reprisal for prior EEO activity when on February 6, 2013, she was not selected for a promotion to the GS-10 Legal Administration Specialist position, advertised under Job Announcement Number SA- 796944-13-035. After completion of the investigation of the complaint, Complainant did not request a hearing. The Agency then issued its final Agency decision concluding that it asserted legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its action, which Complainant failed to rebut. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS As this is an appeal from a 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 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. 0120142081 2 C.F.R. § 1614.405(a). See Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive for 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 (EEO MD-110), Chap. 9 § VI.A. (Aug. 5, 2015) (explaining that the de novo standard of review "requires that the Commission examine the record without regard to the factual and legal determinations of the previous decision maker," and that EEOC "review the documents, statements, and testimony of record, including any timely and relevant submissions of the parties, and . . . issue its decision based on the Commission's own assessment of the record and its interpretation of the law"). After a review of the record, assuming arguendo that Complainant established a prima facie case of discrimination, we find that the Agency articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for the alleged nonselection. During the relevant time period at issue Complainant was a GS-9 Benefit Authorizer at the Agency’s Mid-Atlantic Program Service Center, Processing Center Operations, Process Area 2, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The Agency indicated that Complainant applied for the GS-10 Legal Administration Specialist position at issue and she was one of 15 candidates referred to three Selecting Officials (SOs). The SOs indicated that they reviewed the referred candidates’ performance appraisals for job knowledge and quality of work and recommendations from their supervisors but did not conduct interviews. The SOs selected nine individuals for the position at issue and all of them were highly recommended by their supervisors and they were all assessed with strong job knowledge, communication skills, and work quality. The SOs indicated that Complainant was not selected because she was one of four candidates who were recommended but were not highly recommended by their supervisors. The SOs indicated that two highly recommended individuals, as well as all of the not highly recommended individuals, were not selected. Complainant’s supervisor (S1) indicated that S1 recommended, but not highly recommended, Complainant for the position at issue because her job knowledge was average, her verbal communication skills were adequate, and she lacked interpersonal skills. S1 also stated that Complainant mentored some of their new hires but she did not perform very well in that capacity. After a review of the record, we find that Complainant failed to show that the Agency’s articulated reasons were a mere pretext for discrimination. Furthermore, Complainant failed to show that her qualifications for the position were plainly superior to the selectees’ qualifications. See Wasser v. Department of Labor, EEOC Request No. 05940058 (November 2, 1995). Based on the foregoing, we find that Complainant failed to show that the Agency’s action was motivated by discrimination as she alleged. CONCLUSION Accordingly, the Agency’s final decision finding of no discrimination is AFFIRMED. 0120142081 3 STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL RECONSIDERATION (M0815) 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, 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 (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 0120142081 4 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 March 11, 2016 Date Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation