Howard Wendell Brown, Complainant,v.Richard J. Danzig, Secretary, Department of the Navy, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionAug 11, 2000
01a03752 (E.E.O.C. Aug. 11, 2000)

01a03752

08-11-2000

Howard Wendell Brown, Complainant, v. Richard J. Danzig, Secretary, Department of the Navy, Agency.


Howard Wendell Brown v. Department of the Navy

01A03752

August 11, 2000

.

Howard Wendell Brown,

Complainant,

v.

Richard J. Danzig,

Secretary,

Department of the Navy,

Agency.

Appeal No. 01A03752

Agency No. 97-65886-025

Hearing No. 150-98-8443X

DECISION

The complainant timely initiated an appeal from the agency's final

action concerning his equal employment opportunity (EEO) complaint of

unlawful employment discrimination in violation of Title VII of the

Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. � 2000e et seq. <1>

The appeal is accepted pursuant to 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659 (1999)

(to be codified at 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405). The complainant alleges

he was discriminated against on the bases of race (Black), sex (male)

and reprisal when the agency's responsible management official (RMO)

did not select him for the position of Hub Scheduler, GS-11, under Merit

Promotion No. 97-0083. For the following reasons, the Commission AFFIRMS

the agency's final action.

The record reveals that the complainant, a GS-09 Production Controller

at the agency's Naval Air Station, Jacksonville, Florida facility,

filed a formal EEO complaint with the agency on July 30, 1997, alleging

that the RMO had discriminated against him as referenced above. At the

conclusion of the investigation, the complainant received a copy of the

investigative report and

requested a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). Following a

hearing, the AJ issued a decision finding no discrimination.

The AJ concluded that the complainant failed to establish a prima facie

case of reprisal because he admitted that he had not engaged in prior

EEO activity. The AJ further concluded that the complainant established

a prima facie case of race and sex discrimination. Specifically, the AJ

found that the complainant applied for the position and was not selected

while the 14 selectees were all Caucasian males and females.

The AJ next concluded that the agency articulated legitimate,

nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions. Specifically, the AJ found

that the record evidence supported the Selection Advisory Board's (SAB)

rating of the applications and their respective recommendations to

the selecting officials (SO), which did not include the complainant.

The AJ noted that the complainant's application did not provide the

same qualitative description of his experience, knowledge and skills

as the other candidates who were recommended. Thus, the AJ found that

the agency articulated a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for not

selecting the complainant because he was not on the list of qualifieds

or alternatives.

The AJ found that the complainant did not establish that more likely than

not, the agency's articulated reasons were a pretext to mask unlawful

discrimination/retaliation. In reaching this conclusion, the AJ found

that the applications in the record supported the SAB's recommendations

and thus the SOs' selections based on those recommendations. The AJ

further found that there was no evidence that the SAB's system of rating

had a disparate effect on the complainant or any other employee. The AJ

found no evidence that the complainant's nonselection occurred because

of his race, sex or in reprisal. The agency's final action implemented

the AJ's decision.

On appeal, the complainant restates arguments previously made at the

hearing. In response, the agency requests that we affirm its final

action.

Pursuant to 64 Fed. Reg 37,644, 37,659 (1999) (to be codified at

29 C.F.R. � 1614.405(a)), all post-hearing factual findings by an

Administrative Judge will be upheld if supported by substantial evidence

in the record. Substantial evidence is defined as �such relevant evidence

as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.�

Universal Camera Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board, 340 U.S. 474,

477 (1951)(citation omitted). A finding that discriminatory intent

did not exist is a factual finding. See Pullman-Standard Co. v. Swint,

456 U.S. 273, 293 (1982).

After a careful review of the record, the Commission finds that the

AJ's decision properly summarized the relevant facts and referenced

the appropriate regulations, policies, and laws. We note that the

complainant failed to present evidence that any of the agency's actions

were in retaliation for the complainant's prior EEO activity or were

motivated by discriminatory animus toward complainant's race or sex.

We discern no basis to disturb the AJ's decision. Therefore,

after a careful review of the record, including the complainant's

contentions on appeal, we AFFIRM the agency's final action.

STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL

RECONSIDERATION (M0300)

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 64

Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659 (1999) (to be codified and hereinafter referred

to as 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 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,661 (1999) (to be codified and hereinafter

referred to as 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).

COMPLAINANTS' RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (S0400)

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

August 11, 2000

__________________

Date

CERTIFICATE OF MAILING

For timeliness purposes, the Commission will presume that this decision

was received within five (5) calendar days after it was mailed. I certify

that this decision was mailed to complainant, complainant's representative

(if applicable), and the agency on:

__________________

Date

______________________________

1 On November 9, 1999, revised regulations governing the EEOC's federal

sector complaint process went into effect. These regulations apply to all

federal sector EEO complaints pending at any stage in the administrative

process. Consequently, the Commission will apply the revised regulations

found at 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644 (1999), where applicable, in deciding the

present appeal. The regulations, as amended, may also be found at the

Commission's website at www.eeoc.gov.