0120070458
01-13-2009
Frank J. Garri, Complainant, v. Henry M. Paulson, Jr., Secretary, Department of the Treasury, (Internal Revenue Service), Agency.
Frank J. Garri,
Complainant,
v.
Henry M. Paulson, Jr.,
Secretary,
Department of the Treasury,
(Internal Revenue Service),
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120070458
Agency No. TD062110
DECISION
On October 30, 2006, complainant filed an appeal from the agency's
September 26, 2006 final decision concerning his equal employment
opportunity (EEO) complaint alleging employment discrimination in
violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA),
as amended, 29 U.S.C. � 621 et seq. The appeal is deemed timely and is
accepted pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405(a). For the following reasons,
the Commission AFFIRMS the agency's final decision.
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, complainant worked
as a Supervisory Appeals Officer, IR-0930-03, stationed in Jacksonville,
Florida. On December 13, 2005, complainant filed an EEO complaint
alleging that he was discriminated against on the basis of age (63)
when:
1. On August 14, 2005, his manager suggested it was time for him to
retire or he would be demoted;
2. On August 19, 2005, his manager spoke in a harassing tone, informed
him he might be demoted, and said she never valued any of his work; and
3. In October 2005, he received a performance appraisal for the period
ending September 30 with an average overall rating of "Met" and with
unfavorable comments in the narrative section.
At the conclusion of the investigation, complainant was provided with a
copy of the report of investigation and notice of his right to request
a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). In accordance with
complainant's request, the agency issued a final decision pursuant to
29 C.F.R. � 1614.110(b). The decision concluded that complainant failed
to prove that he was subjected to discrimination as alleged.
On appeal, complainant, through counsel, asks the Commission to "give
special consideration to those retired managers who came forward with
an affidavit to support my cause." Complainant asks the Commission to
reconsider the decision. In reply, the agency asserts that none of the
retired managers have any first-hand knowledge of the challenged actions
in this case. Additionally, the agency asserts that the record contains
no evidence that any of the managers who allege discrimination in this
record filed EEO complaints or otherwise challenged the discriminatory
treatment they allegedly suffered. Finally, the agency asks us to affirm
the FAD.
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 C.F.R. � 1614.405(a). See EEOC Management
Directive 110, Chapter 9, � VI.A. (November 9, 1999) (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").
Under the ADEA, it is "unlawful for an employer . . . to fail or refuse
to hire or to discharge any individual or otherwise discriminate against
any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions,
or privileges of employment, because of such individual's age." 29
U.S.C. � 623(a)(1). When a complainant alleges that he or she has been
disparately treated by the employing agency as a result of unlawful
age discrimination, "liability depends on whether the protected trait
(under the ADEA, age) actually motivated the employer's decision."
Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 141 (2000)
(citing Hazen Paper Co. v. Biggins, 507 U.S. 604,610 (1993)). "That is,
[complainant's] age must have actually played a role in the employer's
decision making process and had a determinative influence on the
outcome." Id.
Harassment
Complainant alleges that he was subjected to a hostile work environment
and harassment. To establish a prima facie case of hostile environment
harassment, a complainant must show that: (1) s/he is a member of a
statutorily protected class; (2) s/he was subjected to harassment in the
form of unwelcome verbal or physical conduct involving the protected
class; (3) the harassment complained of was based on the statutorily
protected class; and (4) the harassment affected a term or condition of
employment and/or had the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering
with the work environment and/or creating an intimidating, hostile, or
offensive work environment. Humphrey v. United States Postal Service,
EEOC Appeal No. 01965238 (October 16, 1998); 29 C.F.R. �1604.11. In this
case, complainant has not persuaded the Commission that the alleged
harassing acts were motivated by age-based discriminatory animus.1
Performance Appraisal
To prevail in a disparate treatment claim such as this, complainant
must satisfy the three-part evidentiary scheme fashioned by the Supreme
Court in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). He
must generally establish a prima facie case by demonstrating that
he 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). The prima facie inquiry may be
dispensed with in this case, however, since the agency has articulated
legitimate and nondiscriminatory reasons for its conduct. See United
States Postal Service Board of Governors v. Aikens, 460 U.S. 711,
713-17 (1983); Holley v. Department of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Request
No. 05950842 (November 13, 1997). To ultimately prevail, complainant must
prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the agency's explanation
is a pretext for discrimination. Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products,
Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 120 S.Ct. 2097 (2000); St. Mary's Honor Center
v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 519 (1993); Texas Department of Community
Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 256 (1981); Holley v. Department of
Veterans Affairs, EEOC Request No. 05950842 (November 13, 1997); Pavelka
v. Department of the Navy, EEOC Request No. 05950351 (December 14, 1995).
Assuming complainant can establish a prima facie case of age
discrimination, the agency has articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory
reason for his "Met" rating. Specifically, complainant's manager
indicated that complainant's performance warranted this rating.2 Although
complainant disagrees with management's critiques of his work, he has
not presented evidence that the agency's reason is, more likely than
not, a pretext for age-based discrimination. In so finding, we note
that we do not have the benefit of an AJ's findings after a hearing,
as complainant chose a FAD instead and therefore, we can only evaluate
the facts based on the weight of the evidence presented to us.
Based on a thorough review of the record and the contentions on appeal,
including those not specifically addressed herein, we AFFIRM the FAD.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0408)
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 (S0408)
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 (Z1008)
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 from the Court that
the Court appoint an attorney to represent you and that the Court also
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 with
the Court 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
January 13, 2009
__________________
Date
1 We note that there is a dispute as to what actually transpired
concerning complainant's allegation that his manager told him that she
did "not value" any of his work. The manager indicates that what she in
fact stated was that she "had never valued his work over a 'met rating'
in either of the times where he directly reported" to her. Report of
Investigation, at 59.
2 In the leadership section of the summary evaluation, complainant's
manager indicated that leadership had fallen to complainant's peer manager
and that complainant needed to demonstrate considerably more initiative.
In the employee satisfaction section, the manager stated that the team's
survey results were less than expected and improvement was needed in
addressing employee needs and concerns.
??
??
??
??
2
0120070458
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P. O. Box 19848
Washington, D.C. 20036