Miles N.,1 Complainant,v.Robert L. Wilkie, Jr., Acting Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionJun 14, 2018
0120170562 (E.E.O.C. Jun. 14, 2018)

0120170562

06-14-2018

Miles N.,1 Complainant, v. Robert L. Wilkie, Jr., Acting Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs, Agency.


U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

Office of Federal Operations

P.O. Box 77960

Washington, DC 20013

Miles N.,1

Complainant,

v.

Robert L. Wilkie, Jr.,

Acting Secretary,

Department of Veterans Affairs,

Agency.

Appeal No. 0120170562

Hearing No. 480-2014-00161X

Agency No. 200P03442012103872

DECISION

On December 3, 2015, Complainant filed an appeal with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission), pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.403(a), from the Agency's November 16, 2016 final order concerning his equal employment opportunity (EEO) complaint alleging employment discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), as amended, 42 U.S.C. � 2000e et seq., Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Rehabilitation Act), as amended, 29 U.S.C. � 791 et seq., and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), as amended, 29 U.S.C. � 621 et seq.

At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked in a non-pay status position through the Agency's Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment Program at its Los Angeles, California Service Center. Complainant was in training to be a Veterans Service Representative or Veterans Claims Assistant.

On November 15, 2012, Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging that the Agency discriminated against him and subjected him to hostile work environment harassment on the bases of sex (male), disability (sciatic nerve problem, lumbar dislocation, and anxiety), age (44 at time of incident), and reprisal for prior protected EEO activity (opposed prior non-selection) when:

1. in 2010, it failed to select him for a Veterans Service Representative, GS-7 position,

2. in April 2011, the Agency isolated Complainant and subjected him to being followed and spied on by coworkers because he submitted medical documentation following a back injury,

3. in April 2011, Complainant's Supervisor (S1) asked him for his social security number and date of birth, which he refused to provide,

4. in June or July 2011, Complainant found his personal veterans file in the Triage and Public Information Departments (where he worked) and believes S1 placed his file there to compromise his private information,

5. S1 had Complainant organize mail with his behind facing coworkers,

6. a male visitor to the facility asked Complainant for a date, and

7. on November 15, 2011, the Agency failed to select him for a Veterans Service Representative position.

Following the investigation, the Agency provided Complainant with a copy of the report of investigation, and notice of the right to request a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ) or an immediate final agency decision. Complainant timely requested a hearing. The assigned AJ held a hearing on September 21, 2016, and issued a decision on November 2, 2016. The AJ found Complainant was not a credible witness and that he failed to establish the Agency's actions were based on discriminatory motives. Further, the AJ found Complainant failed to show that the Agency improperly handled his confidential medical information. Subsequently, on November 16, 2016, the Agency issued a final order adopting the AJ's finding that Complainant failed to prove that the Agency subjected him to discrimination as alleged. The instant appeal from Complainant followed.

Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405(a), all post-hearing factual findings by an AJ 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 regarding whether or not discriminatory intent existed is a factual finding. See Pullman-Standard Co. v. Swint, 456 U.S. 273, 293 (1982). An AJ's conclusions of law are subject to a de novo standard of review, whether or not a hearing was held.

An AJ's credibility determination based on the demeanor of a witness or on the tone of voice of a witness will be accepted unless documents or other objective evidence so contradicts the testimony or the testimony so lacks in credibility that a reasonable fact finder would not credit it. See EEOC Management Directive 110, Chapter 9, at � VI.B. (Aug. 5, 2015).

Upon careful review of the AJ's decision and the evidence of record, as well as the parties' arguments on appeal, we conclude that substantial evidence of record supports the AJ's determination that Complainant has not proven discrimination by the Agency as alleged.

Accordingly, we AFFIRM the Agency's final order adopting the AJ's decision.

STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL

RECONSIDERATION (M0617)

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. A party shall have twenty (20) calendar days of receipt of another party's timely request for reconsideration in which to submit a brief or statement in opposition. See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405; Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive for 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 (EEO MD-110), at Chap. 9 � VII.B (Aug. 5, 2015). All requests and arguments must be submitted to the Director, Office of Federal Operations, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Complainant's request may be submitted via regular mail to P.O. Box 77960, Washington, DC 20013, or by certified mail to 131 M Street, NE, Washington, DC 20507. 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 agency's request must be submitted in digital format via the EEOC's Federal Sector EEO Portal (FedSEP). See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.403(g). 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 (S0610)

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 (Z0815)

If you want to file a civil action but cannot pay the fees, costs, or security to do so, you may request permission from the court to proceed with the civil action without paying these fees or costs. Similarly, if you cannot afford an attorney to represent you in the civil action, you may request the court to appoint an attorney for you. You must submit the requests for waiver of court costs or appointment of an attorney directly to the court, not the Commission. The court has the sole discretion to grant or deny these types of requests. Such requests do not alter the time limits for filing a civil action (please read the paragraph titled Complainant's Right to File a Civil Action for the specific time limits).

FOR THE COMMISSION:

______________________________ Carlton M. Hadden's signature

Carlton M. Hadden, Director

Office of Federal Operations

June 14, 2018

__________________

Date

1 This case has been randomly assigned a pseudonym which will replace Complainant's name when the decision is published to non-parties and the Commission's website.

---------------

------------------------------------------------------------

---------------

------------------------------------------------------------

2

0120170562

4

0120170562