Laurice J. Ibrahim, Complainant,v.William S. Cohen, Secretary, Department of Defense, (Defense Finance & Accounting Service), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionJan 19, 2000
01982305 (E.E.O.C. Jan. 19, 2000)

01982305

01-19-2000

Laurice J. Ibrahim, Complainant, v. William S. Cohen, Secretary, Department of Defense, (Defense Finance & Accounting Service), Agency.


Laurice J. Ibrahim v. Department of Defense

01982305

January 19, 2000

Laurice J. Ibrahim, )

Complainant, )

) Appeal No. 01982305

v. ) Agency No. 95-037

) Hearing No. 170-96-8454X

William S. Cohen, )

Secretary, )

Department of Defense, )

(Defense Finance & Accounting Service), )

Agency. )

)

DECISION

INTRODUCTION

Complainant timely initiated an appeal from the agency's final decision

concerning her equal employment opportunity (EEO) complaint of unlawful

employment discrimination on the bases of national origin (Egyptian),

sex (Female), and age (61), in violation of Title VII of the Civil

Rights Act of 1964, 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.<1> Complainant alleges she was discriminated against when:

(1) she was given an official Letter or Reprimand for failing to follow

instructions and discourteous conduct on June 21, 1995; (2) she was rated

"Highly Successful" on her annual performance rating received June 14,

1995; (3) she was forced to work in a hostile work environment in which

her supervisor allegedly would frequently and continuously yell at her;

(4) her supervisor tried to intimidate her by frequently throwing things

onto her desk; (5) her supervisor falsely accused her of destroying a

Lotus 1,2,3 Template; (6) her supervisor denied complainant training

opportunities in Pre-Retirement, Preparing Financial Statements, and

Accounts Receivable Reports; (7) her supervisor assigned her to new duties

without training her on how to preform her duties; (8) she was denied a

monetary award; (9) her supervisor continuously denied her overtime to

complete assigned work; (10) her supervisor denied her request to return

to a compressed work schedule; and (11) she was subjected to a hostile

work environment. The appeal is accepted in accordance with EEOC Order

No. 960.001. For the following reasons, the Commission affirms the

agency's final decision.

ISSUE PRESENTED

The issue presented herein is whether complainant has established, by

preponderant evidence, that the agency discriminated against her on the

bases of national origin, sex, and age.<2>

BACKGROUND

The record reveals that during the relevant time, complainant was

employed as a systems accountant at the Defense Finance & Accounting

Service's Bayonne, New Jersey facility. Complainant alleges that she

was subject to several acts of employment discrimination from June 1995

through September 1995. Believing she was a victim of discrimination,

complainant sought EEO counseling and, subsequently, filed a formal

complaint on September 29, 1995. An investigation was conducted by the

Office of Complaints Investigations, Columbia, Maryland and a report

was received by the agency on May 15, 1996.

At the conclusion of the investigation, complainant received a copy

of the investigative report(s) and requested a hearing before an EEOC

Administrative Judge (AJ) on June 4, 1996. Following the October 28, 1997

hearing, the AJ issued a Bench Decision on November 4, 1997, finding no

discrimination. The AJ concluded that complainant failed to establish a

prima facie case of racial, national origin, sex, and age discrimination

because she failed to demonstrate that similarly situated employees

not in her protected classes were treated differently under similar

circumstances regarding her various claims of employment discrimination.

Further, in the absence of appropriate comparative employees, the AJ

found that complainant failed to show any causal connection between her

protected group status and the employment actions at issue. The AJ

concluded that complainant failed to show by preponderant evidences

that she was subject to a hostile work environment based on her race,

national origin, sex, or age from June 1995 through September 1995.

Accordingly, the AJ recommended a finding of no discrimination.

The agency's final decision implemented the AJ's Bench Decision.

In this present appeal, complainant fails to raise any new contentions.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

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

recommended findings and conclusions properly summarized the relevant

facts and referenced the appropriate regulations, policies, and laws.

We conclude that complainant failed to establish by a preponderance

of the evidence that any of the agency's actions were motivated by

discriminatory animus toward complainant's age, national origin, or sex.

Accordingly, we discern no basis to disturb the AJ's recommended findings

and conclusions or the agency's adoption of the AJ's decision.

CONCLUSION

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

contentions on appeal, we AFFIRM the agency's 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 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:

Jan 19, 2000

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:

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.

2 Although complainant also alleged discrimination on the basis of race

(Egyptian), the Commission notes that it considers the term "Egyptian"

to be a national origin rather than a racial group.