Hillary Hoban, Complainant,v.Anthony J. Principi, Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionNov 29, 2004
01A44072_r (E.E.O.C. Nov. 29, 2004)

01A44072_r

11-29-2004

Hillary Hoban, Complainant, v. Anthony J. Principi, Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs, Agency.


Hillary Hoban v. Department of Veterans Affairs

01A44072

November 29, 2004

.

Hillary Hoban,

Complainant,

v.

Anthony J. Principi,

Secretary,

Department of Veterans Affairs,

Agency.

Appeal No. 01A44072

Agency Nos. 200K-0676-2003102342 and 200K-0676-2003103598

DECISION

Complainant initiated an appeal from a final decision concerning her

complaint of unlawful employment discrimination in violation of Section

501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Rehabilitation Act), as amended,

29 U.S.C. � 791 et seq. For the following reasons, the Commission

AFFIRMS the agency's final decision.

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

as a Staff Nurse at the agency's Veterans Affairs Medical Center in

Tomah, Wisconsin. Complainant sought EEO counseling and subsequently

filed formal complaints dated May 19, 2003 and August 16, 2003, alleging

that she was discriminated against on the bases of disability (alcoholism

and trigeminal neuralgia) and in reprisal for prior EEO activity when:

200K-0676-2003102342

On January 2, 2003, a co-worker (C1) was verbally sarcastic and abusive

when she informed complainant that she was not a �team player� and that

she and M1 did not enjoy working with complainant;

On January 6, 2003, the acting nurse manager (C2) denied complainant's

request to meet regarding C1's sarcasm and abuse;

On March 22, 2003, C1 followed complainant into the �med room� and asked

complainant �what business [she] had in there.� C1 also told complainant

that complainant was gone too long when she went to the toilet and to

the coffee room and C1 questioned complainant about her habit of going

to her vehicle with her backpack to get some air and when she is tired.

On March 23, 2003, C1 insinuated that complainant had a drug problem

in front of another co-worker.

On March 25, 2003, C1 and M1 reported that complainant had taken a

patient's narcotic medication.

On March 26, 2003, M2 placed complainant on administrative leave pending

a Board of Investigation.

On March 27, 2003, complainant was reassigned to administrative duties

pending the outcome of the Board of Investigation.

On May 22, 2003, M2 assigned complainant to work on Ward 403-A.

200K-0676-2003103598

2.

On May 2, 2003, M3 did not reassign complainant to a nursing position

on Ward 408-B.

On June 2, 2003, complainant was not selected for a Nurse Manager position

on Ward 408-A under vacancy announcement WN-02-03-22-TM.

At the conclusion of the investigation, complainant was informed of

her right to request a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge

or alternatively, to receive a final decision by the agency. When

complainant failed to respond within the time period specified in 29

C.F.R. � 1614.108(f), the agency issued a final decision.

In its decision, the agency concluded that complainant failed to

show that discrimination had occurred. The agency determined that

complainant established that she was a qualified person with a disability

(alcoholism). Regarding agency case number 200K-0676-2003102342, the

agency found that complainant failed to show that she was subjected to a

hostile work environment or that any of the incidents were motivated by

discrimination. Additionally, regarding claims 1(F) and 1(G) the agency

found that complainant failed to show that she was treated differently

than any other similarly situated person. Regarding claim 1(H), the

agency found that the agency offered complainant a transfer to Ward 403-A

after she was exonerated by the Administrative Board of Investigation.

The agency stated that although complainant preferred to be assigned to

Ward 403-B, she was reassigned to Ward 403-A because a person with more

seniority was assigned to Ward 403-B . The agency found that there

was an opening in Ward 403-A, complainant was offered that opening,

and complainant thankfully accepted that offer.

Regarding agency case number 200K-0676-2003103598, the agency found that

management's decision not to transfer complainant pending the outcome

of the Board of Investigation, and its determination that complainant

was not among the highest scoring applicants for the position of Nurse

Manager, were both supported by ample evidence in the record, including

the testimony of responsible agency witnesses to each action.

On appeal, complainant contends that many people had access to the room

in which patients' medications are stored, but she was the only person

accused of taking the patient's medication because she is a recovered

alcoholic and open with her co-workers and supervisors about her history

with alcohol and her sobriety of many years.

ANALYSIS

The Commission finds that complainant has failed to show that any of

the alleged incidents in the complaint were motivated by disability

discrimination or in retaliation for prior protected activity.<1>

Regarding claims 1(F), 1(G), and 1(H), we find that complainant failed

to present evidence that more likely than not, the agency's articulated

reasons for its actions were a pretext for discrimination. Moreover,

the agency's finding regarding the absence of a specific policy regarding

the promotion or transfer of employees who were under active internal

investigation, is unrebutted in the record, and in fact, as alleged in

claim 1(H), the agency offered complainant a transfer to Ward 403-A,

which she accepted. We therefore find that complainant has not shown

the agency's decision not to transfer her to Ward 408-B was discriminatory

(claim 2(A)).

In a non-selection case, pretext may be demonstrated by a showing that

complainant's qualifications are observably superior to those of the

selectee. Williams v. Department of Education, EEOC Request No. 05970561

(August 6, 1998). Having considered the evidence of record, we find that

complainant failed to establish that the agency's proffered reasons for

her non-selection for the position of Nurse Manager were a pretext for

discrimination. Specifically, we note that complainant has not offered

any evidence that her qualifications for the position were "observably

superior" to those of the selectee. Though complainant contends that

she was the most qualified candidate for the position due to her job

experience and education, we find that complainant has not presented any

persuasive evidence that the agency would have otherwise selected her

for promotion to the position of Nurse Manager, but for discrimination.

Rather, the Commission notes that complainant was rated fourth, out of

a field of seven candidates for the position at the conclusion of the

agency's interviews.

Significantly, we note that complainant herself states that she has

no evidence regarding any bias on behalf of the selecting official

against individuals with disabilities, other than the fact that she

was not selected for the position of Nurse Manager. Accordingly, we

find complainant has not demonstrated that discrimination occurred with

respect to claim 2(B).

Therefore, after a careful review of the record we AFFIRM the agency's

final decision finding no discrimination.

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 29, 2004

__________________

Date

1Because of our disposition, we do not address

whether complainant is a qualified individual with a disability.