George Reavill, Complainant,v.Gordon R. England, Secretary, Department of the Navy, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionNov 2, 2000
01993667 (E.E.O.C. Nov. 2, 2000)

01993667

11-02-2000

George Reavill, Complainant, v. Gordon R. England, Secretary, Department of the Navy, Agency.


George Reavill v. Department of the Navy

01993667

November 2, 20001

.

George Reavill,

Complainant,

v.

Gordon R. England,

Secretary,

Department of the Navy,

Agency.

Appeal No. 01993667

Agency No. DON-94-68836-002

DECISION

Complainant timely initiated an appeal from a final agency decision

(FAD) concerning his complaint of unlawful 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., and Section 501 of the Rehabilitation

Act of 1973 (Rehabilitation Act), as amended, 29 U.S.C. � 791 et seq.

The appeal is accepted pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405. Complainant

alleged that he was discriminated against on the bases of disability

(arteriosclerosis/neuropathy) and religion (Jewish), when he was denied

promotion to the full performance level as a General Supply Specialist,

GS-9.

The record reveals that during the relevant time, complainant was employed

as a General Supply Specialist, GS-7, at the Fleet and Industrial Supply

Center, Jacksonville, Florida. On June 6, 1988, complainant was placed

in a entry level, GS-7, position under the Naval Supply Center Training

Agreement. This agreement entered complainant into the Master Stovepipe

Training Plan (stovepipe), which would allow complainant, upon the

completion of his training plan, to be promoted to his target position

of GS-9 as an exception to the usual competitive promotion procedures.

When stovepipe was first initiated, there were no time limits set

for the completion of the training plan, and almost all employees who

completed the plan were promoted to the GS-9 level. In 1990, however,

it was discovered that the budget could no longer support all of the

promotions to GS-9, and as a result, a memo was submitted on September 27,

1990, suspending all automatic career ladder promotions. It was stated

that all future promotions would be made subject to new guidelines which

established that there had to be: 1) an opening; 2) money; 3) some need;

and 4) a budget for the following year. (Counselor's Report, page 3).

On January 17, 1991, complainant received a copy of a personnel action

stating that he was being reassigned to a position at the GS-7 full

performance level, and that he would then have to compete for GS-9

vacancies with others at the same grade level.

Believing he was a victim of discrimination, complainant sought EEO

counseling and subsequently filed a formal complaint on March 21, 1994.

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

initially requested a hearing before an Administrative Judge, but later

rescinded the request and the agency issued a final decision.

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

prima facie case of religious or disability discrimination, in that the

record shows a number of other employees, outside complainant's protected

classes, who were also not promoted to the GS-9 level. The agency further

concluded that it articulated legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for

its actions which complainant failed to show were pretextual. On appeal,

complainant addresses numerous errors he contends are contained in the

agency's appeal brief. Complainant also reiterates various arguments made

in his formal complainant, regarding his training plan, and the agency's

failure to promote other disabled employees. The agency requests that

we affirm its FAD.

Complainant has alleged a claim of disparate treatment which is examined

under the three-part analysis first enunciated in McDonnell Douglas

Corporation v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973); Loeb v. Textron, 600 F.2d 1003

(1st Cir. 1979). This established order of analysis in discrimination

cases, in which the first step normally consists of determining the

existence of a prima facie case, need not be followed in all cases.

Where the agency has articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason

for the personnel action at issue, the factual inquiry can proceed

directly to the third step of the McDonnell Douglas analysis, the

ultimate issue of whether complainant has shown by a preponderance of

the evidence that the agency's actions were motivated by discrimination.

United States Postal Service Board of Governors v. Aikens, 460 U.S. 711,

713-714 (1983); Hernandez v. Department of Transportation, EEOC Request

No. 05900159 (June 28, 1990); Peterson v. Department of Health and Human

Services, EEOC Request No. 05900467 (June 8, 1990).

Here, the Commission finds that, assuming, arguendo, complainant

established a prima facie case of discrimination on the bases of

religion and disability, the agency has articulated legitimate,

non-discriminatory reasons for its actions. Namely, that when the

stovepipe program was initiated, all employees who completed their

training plans were considered for promotion, and most were granted it.

Due to financial constraints, however, the agency was subsequently forced

to pull certain programs from the training plan and fewer employees were

promoted. The agency states that due in part to the fact that neither

complainant's former supervisor, nor complainant himself, recommended

complainant for a promotion prior to the downsizing of the stovepipe

program, he was not awarded one.

While the record contains discrepancies with regard to the number of

eligible individuals who did not receive promotions, and the exact date

on which complainant completed his training plan, we nevertheless find

that, complainant has failed to present evidence that more likely than

not, the agency's articulated reasons for its actions were a pretext

for discrimination. Further, although complainant calls into question

the manner in which the agency handled the downsizing of stovepipe

and the limiting of automatic promotions, the Commission can not

second guess an employer's business decisions but can focus only on

an employer's motivation for such decisions. See Texas Department of

Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 259 (1981). Complainant has

adduced no persuasive evidence to show that his religion or disability

were factors in his not receiving a promotion to the GS-9 level.

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 (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

November 2, 20001

__________________

Date