01970046
01-24-2000
Margaret E. Watson, Complainant, v. Bruce Babbitt, Secretary, Department of the Interior, Agency.
Margaret E. Watson v. Department of the Interior
01970046
January 24, 2000
Margaret E. Watson, )
Complainant, )
) Appeal No. 01970046
v. ) Agency No. WG595016
) WGS95019
Bruce Babbitt, )
Secretary, )
Department of the Interior, )
Agency. )
)
DECISION
INTRODUCTION
Complainant timely initiated an appeal of a final agency decision
concerning her complaint of unlawful employment discrimination on the
basis of reprisal (prior EEO activity) in violation of Title VII of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. � 2000e et seq.<1>
The appeal is accepted in accordance with EEOC Order No. 960.001.
For the following reasons, the final agency decision is AFFIRMED.
ISSUE PRESENTED
The issue presented herein is whether complainant has established that
she was discriminated against on the above-referenced basis when: (1)
on December 30, 1994, she was charged eight hours of AWOL, instead of
being granted eight hours of sick leave under the Family Friendly Leave
Act, to attend her uncle's funeral; and (2) on February 21, 1995, she
was removed from her position in the Reference Department and placed in
the Technical Services Department, an area in which she had no expertise,
as Team Coordinator.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Complainant, employed by the agency as a Technical Services Librarian,
stated that she was the victim of retaliation when she was denied eight
hours of conditionally approved Federal Family and Medical Leave to
attend her uncle's funeral and placed on AWOL status by the Supervisory
Librarian (SL) and the Assistant Branch Librarian (ABL), the two alleged
discriminating officials in this case.<2> Her request for leave for
December 28, 1994 was approved by the ABL on December 27, 1994 with
the condition that adequate documentation be provided no later than one
workday following her return to duty, i.e., at the close of the business
day on December 29, 1994 or the start of the business day on December
30, 1994. Complainant maintained that in order to meet the "adequate
documentation" requirement, she provided the ABL with a copy of the
funeral program by 2:00 p.m. on December 30, 1994. According to her,
notwithstanding the fact that she had provided adequate documentation,
she was informed by the SL, via an electronic message received at
approximately 2:08 p.m., that she (complainant) had not complied with
the prevailing rules regarding leave and, therefore, would be marked
AWOL for the December 28 absence.
The SL, the official responsible for marking complainant AWOL, stated that
complainant's AWOL status had nothing do with previous EEO activity.
Instead, she stated, it had to do with the fact that, while the
documentation was proper, it was not adequate because she (complainant)
failed to submit it within the allotted time period. Upon being informed,
by the Employee Relations Office, that the allotted time period, i.e.,
no later than one workday following return to duty, could be interpreted
more than one way, the SL reversed her decision and granted complainant
family sick leave for her absence on December 28th. The ABL informed
complainant of the SL's reversal by memorandum dated January 23, 1995.
Regarding the second issue, information contained in the file indicates
that, on February 21, 1995, complainant was selected for the position
of Team Coordinator in the Technical Services Department. Complainant
stated that she should not have been selected for the position because
she had no experience in the technical services area. According to her,
all of the courses in which she enrolled during her professional career
focused either primarily or secondarily on reference-related services,
not technical services. Complainant further stated that her technical
services training was limited to several basic graduate courses that
she completed over twenty years ago and that, while she is aware of the
changes in technical services, she is not knowledgeable enough in that
area to serve as Team Coordinator of the department. Regarding her
skills in Reference, her previous department, complainant stated that
she was a stellar performer in that area. She believes that she was
transferred out of the Reference Department into the more complex
Technical Services Department so that it would be more difficult for
her to do an effective job. Complainant cited two employees that she
believed were better qualified than her for the position.
The SL denied that complainant's selection as Team Coordinator in
Technical Services was based on retaliation. According to her, she had
decided to reorganize the entire library staff in an effort to improve
services and utilize staff members' strengths while minimizing their
weaknesses. As a result of this massive reorganization, four staff
members were reassigned to new positions, five were selected as Team
Coordinators, and two of the three first level supervisors were removed
as supervisors with the third becoming the first level supervisor for
the entire staff. The SL stated that complainant was chosen to become
a Team Coordinator in Technical Services because she (complainant) had
professional training in librarianship which included one undergraduate
and two graduate level courses (one in serials control) relating to
technical services work; had ten years of experience at their particular
library and, during that time, had worked with cataloging records in
the manual card-based catalog and the two computer-based catalogs;
had assisted library patrons regarding the use of the catalogs; had
verified patrons' requests for inter-library loans; and had supervised the
inter-library loan operations for a period. The SL further stated that
complainant had more formal course work in technical services subjects
than her professionally trained counterparts. Finally, the SL stated
that complainant's individual strengths and capabilities (i.e., logical,
systematic, detailed-oriented) made her the best available librarian
for the position.
The ABL stated that she played no role in the decision to place
complainant in Technical Services. She did state, however, that
complainant was qualified for the position in Technical Services because
she had a Master's Degree in Library Science which prepares librarians
to perform all aspects of library work. She also stated that the two
technicians that complainant cited as being better qualified for the
position did not have the depth of library/information education or
experience which complainant had. One of the technicians cited had
undergraduate and graduate degrees in Elementary Education and the
other one had an undergraduate degree in German. The ABL stated that
these technicians, unlike complainant, did not have a public service
background, nor were they as aware as complainant regarding public
searches for information.
Two other employees testified that they believed that complainant's
removal to Technical Services constituted reprisal because complainant
was not the best qualified person for the newly created position.
One of them stated that complainant did not have any cataloging or
serials experience, while the other one stated that complainant had
never worked in a library technical services department, nor had she
expressed an interest in such functions. A third employee refused to
state that she believed complainant's placement was based on reprisal,
but did state that no other professional service reference librarians
were moved to other departments or made team coordinators for sections
in which they had no experience.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
In the absence of direct evidence of discrimination, the allocation
of burdens and order of presentation of proof in a Title VII case
alleging discrimination is a three-step process. McDonnell Douglas
Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802-803 (1973). See, Hochstadt
v. Worcester Found. for Experimental Biology, Inc., 425 F. Supp. 318
(D. Mass. 1976), aff'd 545 F.2d 222 (1st Cir. 1976) (applying McDonnell
Douglas to retaliation cases). First, complainant must 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. Next, the agency must articulate a
legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason(s) for its actions. Texas Department
of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 253 (1981). If the agency
is successful, then the complainant must prove, by a preponderance of
the evidence, that the legitimate reason proffered by the agency was a
pretext for discrimination. Id. at 256.
In order to establish a prima facie case of discrimination for an
allegation of reprisal, complainant must show the existence of four
elements: (1) that she engaged in protected activity, e.g., participated
in a Title VII proceeding; (2) that the alleged discriminating official
was aware of the protected activity; (3) that she was disadvantaged
by an action of the agency contemporaneous with or subsequent to such
participation; and (4) that there is a causal connection between the
protected activity and the adverse employment action. Hochstadt,
Id; see also Mitchell v. Baldridge, 759 F.2d 80, 86 (D.C. Cir. 1985);
Burris v. United Telephone Co. of Kansas, Inc., 683 F.2d 339, 343 (10th
Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1071 (1982).
Although the initial inquiry of discrimination in a discrimination case
usually focuses on whether the complainant has established a prima facie
case, following this order of analysis is unnecessary when the agency
has articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its actions.
See Washington v. Department of the Navy, EEOC Petition No. 03900056
(May 31, 1990). In such cases, the inquiry shifts from whether the
complainant has established a prima facie case to whether she has
demonstrated by preponderance of the evidence that the agency's reasons
for its actions merely were a pretext for discrimination. Id.; see also
United States Postal Service Board of Governors v. Aikens, 460 U.S. 711,
714-717 (1983).
In this case, we find that the agency has articulated legitimate,
nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions. Regarding the denial of family
sick leave, the agency stated that complainant was marked AWOL because she
failed to submit adequate documentation within the required time period.
In addressing the second issue, the agency stated that complainant was
removed from the Reference Department and assigned to Technical Services
as a Team Coordinator because her educational level and experience made
her the best qualified person for the job.
Because the agency has proffered a legitimate, nondiscriminatory
reason for the alleged discriminatory event, complainant now bears
the burden of establishing that the agency's stated reason is merely a
pretext for discrimination. Shapiro v. Social Security Administration,
EEOC Request No. 05960403 (December 6, 1996). Complainant can do this
by showing that the agency was motivated by a discriminatory reason.
Id. (citing St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (1993)).
We find that complainant has failed to meet that burden.
Regarding the denial of family leave, complainant presented no
evidence indicating that she submitted in a timely matter the necessary
documentation for her absence. Furthermore, the evidence indicates
that upon being informed that the agency's policy concerning the time
period for submitting documentation for absences was ambiguous, the
SL reversed her decision and granted complainant's request for family
sick leave for the December 28 absence. Regarding the second issue,
although two witnesses stated that complainant was not the most qualified
person for the Team Coordinator position, complainant did not submit
any conclusive evidence (i.e., personnel records, college transcripts,
resumes, etc.) with which to substantiate such claims. Consequently,
we find that she failed to prove that the reasons articulated by the
agency constitute an effort to mask discriminatory animus.
CONCLUSION
Therefore, after a careful review of the record, including complainant's
contentions on appeal, the agency's response, and arguments and evidence
not specifically addressed in this decision, we hereby AFFIRM the final
agency decision.
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 24, 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:
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 The SL served as complainant's second level supervisor while the ABL
served as her immediate supervisor.