Julieta B.,1 Complainant,v.Loretta E. Lynch, Attorney General, Department of Justice (Federal Bureau of Prisons), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionJun 15, 2016
0120141798 (E.E.O.C. Jun. 15, 2016)

0120141798

06-15-2016

Julieta B.,1 Complainant, v. Loretta E. Lynch, Attorney General, Department of Justice (Federal Bureau of Prisons), Agency.


U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

Office of Federal Operations

P.O. Box 77960

Washington, DC 20013

Julieta B.,1

Complainant,

v.

Loretta E. Lynch,

Attorney General,

Department of Justice

(Federal Bureau of Prisons),

Agency.

Appeal No. 0120141798

Hearing No. 420-2012-00197X

Agency No. P-2012-0039

DECISION

Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405, the Commission accepts Complainant's appeal from the Agency's March 18, 2014 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. and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), as amended, 29 U.S.C. � 621 et seq.

BACKGROUND

During the period at issue, Complainant worked as a Unit Manager at the Agency's Montgomery, Alabama Federal Prison Camp (FPC Montgomery).

On November 28, 2011, Complainant filed the instant formal complaint. Therein, Complainant alleged that the Agency discriminated against her on the bases of race (African-American), sex (female), age (47), and in reprisal for prior EEO activity when from October 2010 to December 2011:2

1. she was subjected to harassment when staff under her were reassigned and moved without her knowledge;

2. her yearly performance appraisal was given to her by an employee of equal status; and

3. her authority over a subordinate staff was undermined.

After an investigation, Complainant was provided a copy of the investigative file, and requested a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). Thereafter, the Agency filed a Motion for a Decision Without a Hearing. On February 4, 2014, the AJ issued a decision by summary judgment in favor of the Agency.

In finding no discrimination by summary judgment, the AJ found that the record developed during the investigation established the following undisputed facts.

The Warden of FPS Montgomery (African American male, over the age of 40) made the decision to reassign three employees from Complainant's unit while she was away on sick leave. All three employees requested the reassignment. Two employees complained to the Warden of being threatened, harassed and intimidated by Complainant. A Threat Assessment Committee was convened due to the allegations made by one of these employees. The third employee raised concerns regarding the work environment being stressful.

There had been other employees in other units reassigned within the past two years. These employees were reassigned due to staffing shortages in other units. The other supervisors were informed that their employees were being reassigned prior to it occurring.

The Acting Associate Warden (Caucasian female, over age 40) issued Complainant her 2009-2010 performance appraisal. The Acting Associate Warden also issued appraisals to two other department heads (African American female, over age 40; and Caucasian male, over age 40). Complainant received a rating of "Excellent" on her appraisal. Complainant's first level supervisor of record, the Associate Warden, was acting as Warden at the time.

Regarding her allegation that over subordinate staff was undermined, Complainant indicated that one of the staff people, a unit secretary, who had been reassigned from her unit after complaining she was intimidated and threatened by Complainant, would continue to come over to Complainant's unit for no reason. Complainant complained to the Warden that this employee was harassing her, and particularly pointed to an incident were the employee approached her car at an outside restaurant and took pictures of it. She asserted that the Warden took no action on her concerns.

Based on these facts, the AJ concluded that Complainant did not establish a prima facie case of discrimination on any of the bases alleged and, even if she had, the responsible management officials articulated legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for its actions. The AJ then determined that Complainant did not prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that these articulated reasons were a pretext designed to mask the true discriminatory or retaliatory motivation.

The Agency fully implemented the AJ's decision in its final order. Complainant makes no new contentions on appeal. The instant appeal followed.

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.

In order to successfully oppose a decision by summary judgment, a complainant must identify, with specificity, facts in dispute either within the record or by producing further supporting evidence, and must further establish that such facts are material under applicable law. Here, Complainant has submitted no argument on appeal pointing with any specificity to particular evidence in the investigative file or other evidence of record that indicates such a dispute. Therefore, we find no error in the AJ's decision to issue a decision by summary judgment.

A claim of disparate treatment is examined under the three-party analysis first enunciated in McDonnell Douglas Corporation v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). For complainant to prevail, she must first establish a prima facie of discrimination by presenting facts that, if unexplained, reasonably give rise to an inference of discrimination, i.e., that a prohibited consideration was a factor in the adverse employment action. See McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 802; Furnco Construction Corp. v. Waters, 438 U.S. 567 (1978). The burden then shifts to the agency to articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its actions. See Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 253 (1981). Once the agency has met its burden, the complainant bears the ultimate responsibility to persuade the fact finder by a preponderance of the evidence that the agency acted on the basis of a prohibited reason. See St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (1993).

Assuming arguendo that Complainant established a prima facie case of discrimination, we agree with the AJ that the Agency met its burden to present legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for its actions. We find that the Agency's explanation was sufficiently clear and specific to afford Complainant the opportunity to prove pretext.

Upon review of the record, we also agree with the AJ that Complainant failed to prove pretext. In reaching this conclusion, we find no objective or persuasive evidence from which a reasonable fact finder could conclude that management's explanations were unworthy of belief or that it was more likely that the disputed actions occurred for discriminatory reasons. With regard to the reassignment of staff, the evidence establishes that the Warden made the decision at the request of the staff, who complained about feeling intimidated, threatened and/or stressed under Complainant's supervision. With regard to the issuance of Complainant's performance appraisal, the official who gave her the appraisal was acting in a higher level position at the time and gave appraisals to other unit managers as well. Finally, with regard to Complainant's concern that the Warden did nothing about her concerns that she was being harassed by a unit secretary, we find no evidence that the Warden's decision to take no action under the circumstances presented was motivated by discriminatory factors.

The Agency's final order implementing the AJ's decision without a hearing, finding no discrimination, is AFFIRMED.

STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL

RECONSIDERATION (M0416)

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), 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. The requests 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 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. 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

June 15, 2016

__________________

Date

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.

2 For ease of reference, the Commission has numbered Complainant's claims as claims 1 - 3.

---------------

------------------------------------------------------------

---------------

------------------------------------------------------------

2

0120141798

2

0120141798