Hai C.,1 Complainant,v.Tom J. Vilsack, Secretary, Department of Agriculture (Rural Development), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

May 4, 2016

0120140380 (E.E.O.C. May. 4, 2016)

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

Hai C.,1
Complainant,

v.

Tom J. Vilsack,
Secretary,
Department of Agriculture
(Rural Development),
Agency.

Appeal No. 0120140380

Agency No. RD-2013-00145

DECISION

Complainant appeals to the Commission from the Agency’s final decision dated September 18,
2013, finding no discrimination concerning his 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 his complaint, dated December 20, 2012, Complainant alleged discrimination based on race
(Caucasian) in that he was subjected to harassment when on October 15, 2012, he learned that
he was not selected for the GS-0301-12/13, Assistant to the State Director (ASD) position,
advertised under Vacancy Announcement Number MS-2012-0010. After completion of the
investigation of the complaint, the Agency issued its final Agency decision concluding that it
asserted legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its action, which Complainant failed to
rebut.

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.

0120140380

2
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
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 employed at the Agency as an Area Specialist, GS-12, in Grenada, Mississippi. He
applied for the ASD position at issue but was not selected.

The Selecting Official (SO) stated that three candidates, including Complainant, applied for the
position and since they all worked for the Agency’s Rural Development Office, they were
referred for interview by four interview panelists, including the SO. The SO indicated that the
candidates were asked the same five questions and Complainant did not do well during the
interview. Considering the interviews and candidates’ resumes, the SO stated that she selected
a selectee for the position at issue. Specifically, the SO indicated that the selectee interviewed
very well and had been already detailed to the ASD at issue for the past six months.
Complainant claimed that the selectee was preselected since the selectee had been detailed to
the ASD at issue since May 16, 2011. However, Complainant does not claim that he requested
and was denied a detail to the same position.

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. With regard to his claim of
harassment, we find that Complainant failed to establish the severity of the conduct in question
or that it was related to any protected basis of discrimination. Furthermore, Complainant
failed to show that his qualifications for the position were plainly superior to the selectee’s
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 he alleged.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, the Agency’s final decision finding of no discrimination is AFFIRMED.

0120140380

3
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
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.

0120140380

4
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 Carlton M. Hadden’s signature
Office of Federal Operations

May 4, 2016
Date