Karyn R. Knott, Complainant,v.Aida Alvarez, Administrator, Small Business Administration, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionFeb 4, 2000
01972313 (E.E.O.C. Feb. 4, 2000)

01972313

02-04-2000

Karyn R. Knott, Complainant, v. Aida Alvarez, Administrator, Small Business Administration, Agency.


Karyn R. Knott v. Small Business Administration

01972313

February 4, 2000

.

Karyn R. Knott,

Complainant,

v.

Aida Alvarez,

Administrator,

Small Business Administration,

Agency.

Appeal No. 01972313

Agency No. 0894439

DECISION

Complainant timely initiated an appeal of a final agency decision (FAD)

concerning her complaint of unlawful employment discrimination on the

bases of race (Black), sex (female), age (46), and physical disability

(back, leg, asthma and sciatic nerve problems), in violation of Title VII

of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. �2000e et seq.;

the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), as amended, 29

U.S.C. �621 et seq.; and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973,<1> as amended,

29 U.S.C. �791, et seq.<2> Complainant alleges she was discriminated

against when: (1) in June of 1994, she was reassigned from her position

as Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) Program Coordinator/Manager,

Office of Minority Enterprise Development (MED), Division of Minority

Small Business Outreach (DMSBO) to a position in the Management and

Technical Assistance Division with no advancement potential; (2) the

responsibilities for the EDI Program were split into three offices,

but she was denied the opportunity to work in any of these offices. The

appeal is accepted in accordance with EEOC Order No. 960.001. For the

following reasons, the agency's decision is AFFIRMED.

The record reveals that complainant was employed as a GS-1101-13

General Business and Industry Specialist with the agency's MED/DMSBO,

Washington, D.C. office, when the above-stated incidents of discrimination

occurred. Believing she was a victim of discrimination, complainant sought

EEO counseling and, subsequently, filed a formal complaint on August 4,

1994. At the conclusion of the investigation, complainant was informed

of her right to request a hearing before an Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission (EEOC) Administrative Judge, or request a final decision by

the agency. After failing to respond within the appropriate time frame,

the agency issued its FAD.

The FAD found that complainant failed to establish a prima facie case of

discrimination because she presented no evidence that similarly situated

individuals not in her protected classes were treated differently under

similar circumstances. Regarding allegation (1), the FAD specifically

found that complainant failed to demonstrate a prima facie case of

disparate treatment disability discrimination, as although management

knew of her physical impairments, there was insufficient evidence to

establish that the agency reassigned her due to them. The FAD found

that in any event, the agency articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory

reasons for reassigning complainant, namely, that as her former office

(MED/DMSBO) was abolished, it necessitated the transfer of all employees

who worked there; with employees being kept at their grade level but

not necessarily being reassigned to equivalent duties. The Director

of DMSBO (African-American female, age 57, no disability) stated that

complainant's work on EDI was not in her position description and was

undertaken on her own initiative. Further, the Associate Director for MED

(African-American male, age 43, no disability) stated that complainant's

transfer did not adversely affect her promotion potential as there were

several GS-14 positions and one GS-15 position to which complainant could

have applied. The FAD found that complainant failed to demonstrate that

the agency's nondiscriminatory reasons for reassigning complainant were

pretextual and motivated by discriminatory animus. Regarding allegation

(2), the agency found that complainant failed to establish a prima facie

case of discrimination on any basis, as she failed to demonstrate that

she was not reassigned to one of the three newly created offices due to

any discriminatory factors or that similarly situated employees were

treated differently. On appeal, complainant makes no new arguments,

while the agency requests that we affirm its FAD.

After a careful review of the record, based on McDonnell Douglas v. Green,

411 U.S. 792 (1973), Loeb v. Textron, 600 F.2d 1003 (1st Cir. 1979); and

Prewitt v. United States Postal Service, 662 F.2d 292 (5th Cir. 1981),

the Commission finds that the evidence is insufficient to demonstrate a

prima facie case of discrimination on the basis of complainant's race,

age, sex or disability, as there were no similarly situated employees not

in complainant's protected groups who were treated differently when the

DMSBO was abolished and employees were reassigned within the agency. We

further find that in any event, the agency articulated legitimate,

nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions regarding complainant, and

that these reasons were not demonstrated to be pretextual. Therefore,

after a careful review of the record 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 (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). 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 [PAGE 4] 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

February 4, 2000

__________________

Date

1The 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.

2On 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.