01980738
05-02-2000
Joseph Kozloski, Complainant, v. Richard J. Danzig, Secretary, Department of the Navy, Agency.
Joseph Kozloski v. Department of the Navy
01980738
May 2, 2000
Joseph Kozloski, )
Complainant, )
) Appeal No. 01980738
v. ) Agency No. DON 96-00177-009
) Hearing No. 120-97-4189X
Richard J. Danzig, )
Secretary, )
Department of the Navy, )
Agency. )
____________________________________)
DECISION
Complainant timely initiated an appeal from the agency's final decision
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. and Section 501 of
the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 29 U.S.C. � 791 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).<2> Complainant alleges he was
discriminated against on the bases of race (American Indian), national
origin (American Indian) and physical handicap (left knee) when the agency
did not promote him to a Supervisory Engineering Technician position in
September 1995.
The record reveals that complainant, a Planner and Estimator at
the agency's Public Works Center in Norfolk, Virginia, filed a
formal EEO complaint on March 19, 1996, alleging that the agency had
discriminated against him as referenced above.<3> At the conclusion
of the investigation, 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 complainant failed to establish a prima facie
case of discrimination on any of his alleged bases. The AJ found that
neither the selecting official nor the recommending panel members were
aware of complainant's American Indian heritage or his disability.<4>
The agency's final decision implemented the AJ's decision. On appeal,
complainant contends that the selection process was designed to favor
one individual, and he attempts, through the submission of a Report of
Investigation concerning an unnamed employee, to discredit some of the
agency's witnesses.<5> In response, the agency restates its position
and requests that we affirm its final decision.
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).
We do not reach the issue of whether or not the AJ correctly held that
complainant is not a qualified individual with a disability within the
meaning of the Rehabilitation Act. Based on our review of the record,
we find that even assuming arguendo complainant is a "qualified individual
with a disability, we discern no basis to disturb the AJ's finding of no
discrimination. We find that complainant failed to present any evidence
from which we could possibly infer that his non-selection was motivated by
discriminatory animus. We also note that even if complainant could have
established a prima facie case of discrimination, he was ranked eight out
of the ten candidates for the position, and there is no evidence that his
qualifications were superior to those of the selectee. Therefore, after
a careful review of the record, we AFFIRM the agency's final decision.
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:
May 2, 2000
Date Carlton M. Hadden, Acting Director
Office of Federal Operations
1 The Rehabilitation Act was amended in 1992 to apply the standards in
the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) to complaints of discrimination
by federal employees or applicants for employment. Since that time,
the ADA regulations set out at 29 C.F.R. Part 1630 apply to complaints
of disability discrimination. These regulations can be found on EEOC's
website: www.eeoc.gov.
2 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.
3 Complainant had been temporarily promoted to an Engineering Technician
position at the time of the alleged discrimination.
4 Notably, the AJ found that they were all under the general impression
that complainant, like the selectee, was White, and some panels members
assumed that he was Polish.
5 Complainant attempts to raise age discrimination and retaliation
on appeal. We note that at the hearing, the AJ specifically asked
complainant if he wanted to add those additional bases, and he declined
to do so.