01986245
05-24-2000
Louis Pierre, Complainant, v. Bruce Babbitt, Secretary, Department of the Interior, Agency.
Louis Pierre v. Department of the Interior
01986245
May 24, 2000
Louis Pierre, )
Complainant, )
) Appeal No. 01986245
v. ) Agency No. FWS9800R2
)
Bruce Babbitt, )
Secretary, )
Department of the Interior, )
Agency. )
)
)
DECISION
INTRODUCTION
Louis Pierre (complainant) timely filed an appeal on August 14, 1998
with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the Commission)
from a final agency decision (FAD), dated July 16, 1998, concerning a
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.<1> The Commission hereby accepts the appeal in accordance with 64
Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659 (1999)(to be codified at 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405).
ISSUE PRESENTED
Whether the agency correctly determined that complainant was not
discriminated against on the bases of race (African American) when he
was not selected for the position of Corpsmember Supervisor.
BACKGROUND
At the time of the alleged discrimination, complainant was employed
by the agency as a Group Leader, GS-07. He filed a formal complaint,
on October 9, 1997, alleging discrimination on the basis of race
(African American) when, on August 15, 1997, he was not selected for
the position of Corpsmember Supervisor, GS-0186-09. Following his
receipt of the Report of Investigation, complainant declined to request
a hearing. The agency then issued its FAD, on July 16, 1998, finding
no discrimination. This appeal followed.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
A claim of disparate treatment is examined under the three-part analysis
first enunciated in McDonnell Douglas Corporation v. Green, 411 U.S. 792
(1973). For complainant to prevail, he must first establish a prima
facie case 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.
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. 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. St. Mary's Honor
Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (1993).
This established order of analysis in discrimination cases, in which
the first step normally consists of determining the existence of
a prima facie case, need not be followed in all cases. Where the
agency has articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the
personnel action at issue, the factual inquiry can proceed directly to
the third step of the McDonnell Douglas analysis, the ultimate issue of
whether complainant has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that
the agency's actions were motivated by discrimination. U.S. Postal
Service Board of Governors v. Aikens, 460 U.S. 711, 713-714 (1983);
Hernandez v. Department of Transportation, EEOC Request No. 05900159
(June 28, 1990); Peterson v. Department of Health and Human Services,
EEOC Request No. 05900467 (June 8, 1990); Washington v. Department of
the Navy, EEOC Petition No. 03900056 (May 31, 1990).
In response to complainant's claim that he was nonselected for
the position, we find that the agency has articulated a legitimate,
nondiscriminatory reason for the nonselection, namely that the candidate
selected for the position was better qualified than complainant.
The selecting official, S-1, stated that the selectee was determined to
be the best candidate for the position. This determination was based on
results from interviews of the best qualified candidates and a review of
the overall qualifications and specialized experience of each applicant.
S-1 said that the selectee's experience as a head drill instructor
"greatly facilitated his ability to manage persons at the center,"
and that the selectee demonstrated that he was very organized and self
assured, especially during the interview, at handling job related duties
at the Center. S-1 also noted that the selectee performed best in the
interviews, which weighed heavily in his consideration for filling
the position, that the selectee seemed better qualified than any of the
other candidates to assess a situation and make a decision for the good
of the Center, and that the selectee had done an excellent job when he
took over honor guard duties at the Center.
Since the agency articulated such a reason, the burden returns to the
complainant to demonstrate that the agency's articulated reason was a
pretext for discrimination. We find that the complainant has failed to
do so because he has not demonstrated, nor does the record show, that his
qualifications were so plainly superior to the selectee's. See Hodges
v. Navy, EEOC Request No. 05950022 (July 12, 1996) (citing Bauer
v. Bailer, 647 F.2d 1037, 1048 (10th Cir. 1981)). Complainant claims
that he was the superior candidate by virtue of his overall experience,
education, and training. Complainant stated that he possessed more than
eighteen (18) years of experience in the Job Corp Field and had formal
training in teaching behavior management, communications, problem solving,
and group dynamics. The record shows that complainant had five years of
experience in the specific job related field, while the selectee had four.
It shows, further, that the selectee also received specialized training
in human behavior, counseling, training management, weapons, first aid,
drill, and physical training. According to S-1, the selectee was a
better candidate than complainant due to his SF-171 application and his
performance during the interview. Additionally, the record contains
no other evidence of pretext. Therefore, the agency's determination
that complainant failed to establish that he was discriminated against,
with respect to this claim, was correct.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the decision of the agency was proper and is AFFIRMED.
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:
05-24-00
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 of mailing. I certify that
the 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.