Lee R. Batchelor, Complainant,v.Anthony J. Principi, Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionMay 30, 2001
01A03750 (E.E.O.C. May. 30, 2001)

01A03750

05-30-2001

Lee R. Batchelor, Complainant, v. Anthony J. Principi, Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs, Agency.


Lee R. Batchelor v. Department of Veterans Affairs

01A03750

05-30-01

.

Lee R. Batchelor,

Complainant,

v.

Anthony J. Principi,

Secretary,

Department of Veterans Affairs,

Agency.

Appeal No. 01A03750

Agency No. 95-1235

Hearing No. 160-96-8115-X

DECISION

Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405, the Commission accepts the

complainant's appeal from the agency's final decision of March 17, 2000

in the above-entitled matter. The final agency decision (FAD) addressed

complainant's claim that he was discriminated against based on his race

(African-American) and his age (54) when, on January 5, 1995, he was

not selected for the position of Environmental Management Services (EMS)

�Housekeeping Aid Foreman.�

According to the record, complainant filed a formal EEO complaint raising

the issue stated above. Following an investigation of the complaint,

he requested a hearing before an EEOC administrative judge (AJ), which

was held on January 14, 2000. On January 21, 2000, the AJ issued a

recommended decision (RD) which found no discrimination. Thereafter,

the agency issued its FAD which adopted the AJ's RD. Complainant now

appeals the FAD.

The AJ found that complainant established a prima facie case of race

discrimination because he applied for the position, was qualified

and considered for it, but was not selected in favor of a White

applicant. The AJ also concluded that the agency articulated legitimate,

nondiscriminatory reasons for its action, namely that the selectee was

the best qualified individual for the position. The AJ also noted panel

members' testimony that the selectee had superior communication skills

which were critical to interacting with the agency's Nursing Department

on a regular basis, and that the selectee was better able to lead the

workers and assist them in complying or completing their duties.

Ultimately, the AJ found that complainant failed to establish pretext. The

AJ concluded that complainant failed to introduce any evidence to dispute

or otherwise undermine the agency's testimony and sworn statements

which explained the interview process, the written interview questions

and the deliberations which resulted in the selection. The AJ stated

that complainant's suspicions regarding the selection process did not

constitute evidence of pretext. Finally, the AJ rejected complainant's

argument that his twenty-eight (28) years of experience, compared to the

selectee's six (6) years, rendered him (complainant) more qualified for

the position.

Regarding complainant's age discrimination claim, the AJ found that

complainant failed to establish a prima facie case as the selectee was

fifty (50) years of age. The AJ found that, for the same reasons stated

above, the agency articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for

its action which complainant failed to prove were pretextual.

To prevail in a disparate treatment claim such as this, complainant

must satisfy the three-part evidentiary analysis fashioned by the

Supreme Court in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973).

He must initially establish a prima facie case by demonstrating that

he was subjected to an adverse employment action under circumstances

that would support an inference of discrimination. Furnco Construction

co. v. Waters, 438 U.S. 567, 576 (1978). Proof of a prima facie case will

vary depending on the facts of the particular case. McDonnell Douglas,

411 U.S. at 804 n. 14. The burden then shifts to the agency to articulate

a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its actions. Texas Department

of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 253 (1981). To ultimately

prevail, complainant must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that

the agency's explanation is pretextual. Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing

Products, Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 120 S.Ct. 2097 (2000); St. Mary's Honor

Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 519 (1993); Pavelka v. Department of the

Navy, EEOC Request no. 05950351 (December 14, 1995).

We find that the AJ properly determined that complainant failed to prove

that he was discriminated against based on his race or his age. Assuming

that complainant established inferences of race and age discrimination,

we agree that the agency articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory

reasons for its action. In addition to the reasons stated by the AJ,

the agency submitted evidence that the complainant was not chosen over

the selectee, in part, because he (complainant) had not demonstrated

effectiveness in the areas of: (1) keeping records; (2) operating

the computer; and, (3) effectively supervising other employees during

periods when he served as Acting Supervisor. One of the panel members

who had worked with complainant stated that he (the panel member)

had had problems with complainant reporting to work on time, planning

ahead, and completing assignments. By contrast, members of the selection

panel provided testimony that the selectee was consistently deemed more

qualified than complainant with regard to organizational ability and

the ability to effectively supervise. Records reveal that the selectee

was rated higher than complainant in the category of ability to organize,

to keep records, to plan assignments, and to inspect work operations.

We find that complainant failed to prove pretext. The Commission carefully

considered the testimony of several of complainant's co-workers, some of

whom thought that complainant should have been selected because of his 28

years of experience. However, most of the co-workers seemed to think that

the selectee was favored for selection because of his close relationship

with some of the panel members. While it appears from the record that

preselection and favoritism may have played a role in the selection

process, we note that while preselection or favoritism may discredit an

agency's explanation for its selection, preselection by itself does not

violate Title VII if it is not based on a basis prohibited by Title VII.

Goosetree v. State of Tennessee, 796 F.2d 854, 861 (6th Cir. 1986).

We find that complainant failed to submit evidence which adequately

rebutted the agency's specific reasons for his nonselection.

While complainant appears to have been well liked by his co-workers,

he failed to submit evidence which adequately rebutted the agency's

specific reasons for his nonselection, particularly in the areas of

organizational abilities and record keeping skill. Complainant also

submitted no evidence that any favoritism towards the selectee was based

on racial bias on the part of the selecting officials. Accordingly,

after a review of the record in its entirety, including consideration

of all statements submitted on appeal, it is the decision of the Equal

Employment Opportunity Commission to AFFIRM the final agency decision

of March 17, 2000 because the Administrative Judge's ultimate finding,

that unlawful employment discrimination was not proven by a preponderance

of the evidence, is supported by the record.

STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL

RECONSIDERATION (M0900)

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), 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 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 (S0900)

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:

______________________________

Carlton M. Hadden, Director

Office of Federal Operations

____05-30-01______________

Date