0120080818
07-02-2009
Michele E. Riley, Complainant, v. Timothy F. Geithner, Secretary, Department of the Treasury, Agency.
Michele E. Riley,
Complainant,
v.
Timothy F. Geithner,
Secretary,
Department of the Treasury,
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120080818
Hearing No. 471-2007-00062X
Agency No. EEODFS-07-0052-F
DECISION
Complainant filed an appeal with this Commission concerning her complaint
of unlawful employment discrimination. Complainant alleged that she
was subjected to discrimination on the basis of age (over 40) when
on September 27, 2006, complainant was not selected for the position
of Contact Representative, GS-962-5/6/7/8, under Vacancy Announcement
Number 51-85-20106.
On October 30, 2007, an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ) issued a decision
without a hearing finding that there was no genuine issue of material fact
in dispute, and concluded that complainant had not been discriminated
against. Specifically, the AJ found the agency presented legitimate,
nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions, which complainant failed
to rebut. On November 2, 2007, the agency issued a decision finding
no discrimination. The agency fully implemented the AJ's decision.
Complainant now appeals from that decision.
The Commission's regulations allow an AJ to issue a decision without a
hearing when he or she finds that there is no genuine issue of material
fact. 29 C.F.R. � 1614.109(g). This regulation is patterned after the
summary judgment procedure set forth in Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that summary judgment
is appropriate where a court determines that, given the substantive
legal and evidentiary standards that apply to the case, there exists
no genuine issue of material fact. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,
477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986). In ruling on a motion for summary judgment,
a court's function is not to weigh the evidence but rather to determine
whether there are genuine issues for trial. Id. at 249. The evidence of
the non-moving party must be believed at the summary judgment stage and
all justifiable inferences must be drawn in the non-moving party's favor.
Id. at 255. An issue of fact is "genuine" if the evidence is such that
a reasonable fact finder could find in favor of the non-moving party.
Celotex v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986); Oliver v. Digital
Equip. Corp., 846 F.2D 103, 105 (1st Cir. 1988). A fact is "material"
if it has the potential to affect the outcome of the case. If a case
can only be resolved by weighing conflicting evidence, summary judgment
is not appropriate. In the context of an administrative proceeding,
an AJ may properly consider summary judgment only upon a determination
that the record has been adequately developed for summary disposition.
We find that the grant of summary judgment was appropriate, as no
genuine dispute of material fact exists. We also find that the
agency articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for the
alleged nonselection. The selecting official for the position at issue
indicated that she designated the Department 1 Manager and one of her
first line managers to review the applicants' application packages and
to make recommendations for selection. Each candidate's application and
evaluation was reviewed for prior experience, education, and potential for
success in the position at issue. The selecting official stated that her
selection decision was solely based on these managers' recommendation.
Specifically, the Department 1 Manager indicated that she recommended
the selectees over complainant because the selectees were already a
Contract Representative and were performing the duties the job required.
The Manager also indicated that complainant's application revealed that
she failed to proofread her application, showing a lack of thoroughness
in her work. Another manager indicated that he considered complainant
for the position at issue, but he recommended the selectees due to their
current and direct relevant work experience, training, and education.
The Commission finds that complainant failed to rebut the agency's
articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for the selection
decision. Furthermore, complainant failed to show that her qualifications
for the Contact Representative position were plainly superior to the
selectees' qualifications, or that the agency's actions were motivated
by any discrimination.
Accordingly, the agency's decision finding no discrimination is AFFIRMED.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M1208)
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 77960,
Washington, DC 20013. 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 (S0408)
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 (Z1008)
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 from the Court that
the Court appoint an attorney to represent you and that the Court also
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 with
the Court 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
July 2, 2009
__________________
Date
6
0120080818
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013