Hiroko V.,1 Complainant,v.Sonny Perdue, Secretary, Department of Agriculture (Farm Service Agency), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Oct 12, 2018

0120182194 (E.E.O.C. Oct. 12, 2018)

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

Hiroko V.,1
Complainant,

v.

Sonny Perdue,
Secretary,
Department of Agriculture
(Farm Service Agency),
Agency.

Appeal No. 0120182194

Hearing No. 420-2017-00276X

Agency No. FSA201700130

DECISION

Complainant filed an appeal with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or
Commission), pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.403(a), from the Agency’s May 23, 2018, final order
concerning her equal employment opportunity (EEO) 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, the Commission AFFIRMS the Agency’s
final order finding no discrimination.

BACKGROUND

At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a County Executive
Director, GS-1101-12 at the Agency’s Farm Service Agency (FSA) facility in Fayette, Alabama.
On February 8, 2017, Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging that the Agency
discriminated against her on the bases of race (Caucasian) and sex (female) when on October 14,
2016, she was not selected for the Supervisory Agricultural District Director, GS-1101-13
position, advertised under Vacancy Announcement No. FSA-16-12-19-AL-DR.

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.
0120182194

2
At the conclusion of the investigation, the Agency provided Complainant with a copy of the
report of investigation and notice of her right to request a hearing before an Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission Administrative Judge (AJ). Complainant requested a hearing. Over
Complainant's objections, the AJ assigned to the case granted the Agency’s Motion for Summary
Judgment filed March 19, 2018, and issued a decision without a hearing on May 18, 2018. The
Agency subsequently issued a final order adopting the AJ’s finding that Complainant failed to
prove that the Agency subjected her to discrimination as alleged. On appeal, Complainant
alleged that the State Executive Director (SED) discriminated against her by selecting a less
qualified individual, an African-American male, for the Supervisory Agricultural District
Director position.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

The Commission’s regulations allow an AJ to issue a decision without a hearing when he or she
finds that there is no genuine issue of material fact. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.109(g). This regulation is
patterned after the summary judgment procedure set forth in Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that summary judgment is appropriate where
a court determines that, given the substantive legal and evidentiary standards that apply to the
case, there exists no genuine issue of material fact. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S.
242, 255 (1986). In ruling on a motion for summary judgment, a court’s function is not to weigh
the evidence but rather to determine whether there are genuine issues for trial. Id. at 249. The
evidence of the non-moving party must be believed at the summary judgment stage and all
justifiable inferences must be drawn in the non-moving party’s favor. Id. at 255. An issue of
fact is “genuine” if the evidence is such that a reasonable fact finder could find in favor of the
non-moving party. Celotex v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986); Oliver v. Digital Equip.
Corp., 846 F.2D 103, 105 (1st Cir. 1988). A fact is “material” if it has the potential to affect the
outcome of the case.

To prevail in a disparate treatment claim, Complainant must satisfy the three-part evidentiary
scheme fashioned by the Supreme Court in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792
(1973). Complainant must initially establish a prima facie case by demonstrating that she 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). Proof of a
prima facie case will vary depending on the facts of the particular case. McDonnell Douglas, 411
U.S. at 804 n. 14. The burden then shifts to the Agency to articulate a legitimate, non-
discriminatory reason for its actions. Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450
U.S. 248, 253 (1981). To ultimately prevail, Complainant must prove, by a preponderance of the
evidence, that the Agency’s explanation is pretextual. Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products,
Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (2000).

Here, we find that assuming, arguendo, Complainant established a prima facie case of race and
sex discrimination, the Agency nonetheless articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for
0120182194

3
its action. Complainant argued that Selectee’s qualifications did not meet the requirements of the
job announcement. A review of the record shows Selectee met the qualifications. Specifically,
Complainant argued the announcement required supervisory experience and Selectee did not
have supervisory experience necessary for the position. The language in the announcement for
the Supervisory Agricultural District Director position did not require supervisory experience
but, if an applicant did not possess supervisory experience, they had to complete a one-year
probationary period. Accordingly, we find Selectee met the qualifications as detailed in the job
announcement.

The announcement stated how applicants would be evaluated. Part of this evaluation included an
evaluation on oral communication. A panel of three individuals evaluated the applicants and
selected five applicants for a final interview. Prior to tallying the applicants scores, the panel
members unanimously decided to select the applicant with the best interview score and
recommend that applicant to the selecting official, SED. Panel members stated while
Complainant was qualified, the Selectee answered the interview questions more thoroughly.
Specifically, Selectee demonstrated extensive knowledge of the FSA programs and rules and
regulations as it would pertain to the position. One panel member noted Complainant’s interview
was good but Selectee’s was excellent. After tallying the scores of all five interviews, the
applicant with the highest score was Selectee, an African-American male. Complainant scored
third out of the five applicants interviewed. Complainant failed to demonstrate how the Agency’s
selection was a pretext for discrimination related to her sex or race.

CONCLUSION

We AFFIRM the Agency’s final decision finding no discrimination.

STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL

RECONSIDERATION (M0617)

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. A party
shall have twenty (20) calendar days of receipt of another party’s timely request for
0120182194

4
reconsideration in which to submit a brief or statement in opposition. 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.
Complainant’s request 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
agency’s request must be submitted in digital format via the EEOC’s Federal Sector EEO Portal
(FedSEP). See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.403(g). 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
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.
0120182194

5
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

October 12, 2018
Date