01970540
01-24-2000
John T. Robinson, Complainant, v. Daniel R. Glickman, Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Agency.
John T. Robinson v. Department of Agriculture
01970540
January 24, 2000
John T. Robinson, )
Complainant, )
)
v. )
) Appeal No. 01970540
Daniel R. Glickman, ) Agency No. 941227
Secretary, )
Department of Agriculture, )
Agency. )
)
DECISION
INTRODUCTION
Complainant timely initiated an appeal of a final agency decision (FAD)
concerning his complaint of unlawful employment discrimination on the
basis of mental disability in violation of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973,
as amended, 29 U.S.C. � 791, et seq<1>. Complainant alleges that he was
discriminated against when his application for employment was rejected.
The appeal is accepted in accordance with EEOC Order No. 960.001.
For the following reasons, the agency's decision is AFFIRMED.
BACKGROUND
The record reveals that during the relevant time period, complainant held
a temporary position as a Wildlife Biologist at the agency's Six Rivers
National Forest. Complainant had been diagnosed as having "learning
disabilities" in 1990 by the Office of Disabled Student Services at
Humbolt State University. In August 1994, complainant submitted an
application for a Wildlife Biologist position at the agency's Fremont
National Forest. The application contained detailed information on
complainant's education, including college course work. The application
also informed the agency of complainant's disability.
The agency found complainant to be unqualified for the position.
The position's educational requirements included 9 semester hours in
botany or "related plant sciences." The agency Personnel Management
Specialist who examined complainant's application concluded that he
had completed only 6 semester hours of courses in botany or related
plant sciences and on this basis determined that he was not eligible
for further consideration.
Believing himself to be a victim of discrimination, complainant sought
EEO counseling and, subsequently, filed a complaint on December 18, 1994.
At the conclusion of the investigation complainant was furnished with
a copy of the investigative report. He did not elect to exercise his
right to a hearing. Accordingly, the agency issued a final decision on
the basis of the investigative record.
The FAD concluded that complainant established a prima facie case of
discrimination on the basis of disability when he demonstrated that
a similarly situated applicant not in his protected class was treated
more favorably than he under similar circumstances. The FAD determined,
however, that the agency had articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory
reason for its action which complainant had failed to prove was a pretext
designed to conceal discriminatory animus.
From the FAD complainant brings the instant appeal.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
After a careful review of the record, based on McDonnell Douglas
Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) and its progeny, Texas Dept. of
Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 253-56 (1981) and St. Mary's
Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (1993), the Commission finds that
complainant failed to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that
the agency's articulated reasons for its actions were a pretext for
discrimination.<2>
In reaching this conclusion, we note that complainant's principal
contention is that the agency was mistaken in concluding that courses he
had taken entitled "Fertilizers," "Irrigation," "Soils," and "Soils Lab"
did not qualify as courses on "plant sciences." There is some logic to
complainant's argument. Certainly these subjects are related to plants.
The record shows, however, that these fields of study are sometimes
regarded as "soil sciences" rather than plant sciences. For this reason,
we find that the agency's explanation for its actions was not so obviously
incorrect as to permit the conclusion that it was a pretext designed to
conceal discrimination.
CONCLUSION
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 (M1199)
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 (3O) CALENDAR
DAYS of receipt of this decision or WITHIN TWENTY (2O) 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). 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).
COMPLAINANT'S RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (S1199)
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:
1/24/00
Date Carlton M. Hadden, Acting Director
Office of Federal Operations
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:
1/24/00
Date ________________________
Equal Employment Assistant
1On 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.
2Although the initial inquiry in a discrimination case usually focuses
on whether the complainant has established a prima facie case, following
this order of analysis is unnecessary where, as here, the agency has
articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its actions,
i.e., complainant's failure to meet the educational qualifications for
the position. See Washington v. Department of the Navy, EEOC Petition
No. 03900056 (May 31, 1990). In such cases, the inquiry shifts from
whether the complainant has established a prima facie case to whether s/he
has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that the agency's
reason for its actions was a pretext for discrimination. Id.; see also
United States Postal Service Board of Governors v. Aikens, 460 U.S. 711,
714-17 (1983).