Patricia A. Biggers, Complainant,v.Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner, Social Security Administration, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionJan 14, 2009
0120070039 (E.E.O.C. Jan. 14, 2009)

0120070039

01-14-2009

Patricia A. Biggers, Complainant, v. Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner, Social Security Administration, Agency.


Patricia A. Biggers,

Complainant,

v.

Michael J. Astrue,

Commissioner,

Social Security Administration,

Agency.

Appeal No. 0120070039

Agency No. 040065SSA

Hearing No. 120200500203x

DECISION

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

appeal from the agency's August 28, 2006, final order concerning her 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.

Complainant alleged that the agency discriminated against her on

the basis of national origin (Hispanic) when she was reassigned from

the position of Director, Regional Office of Quality Assurance and

Performance Assessment, Boston, MA, GS-15 (Boston), to the position of

Director, Division of Disability Program Quality, Office of Disability

Program Quality, Baltimore, MD, GS-15 (Baltimore), in September 2003.

Following an investigation, complainant requested a hearing before

an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). On June 22 and 23, 2005, the AJ

conducted a hearing, and, on August 1, 2006, he issued a decision,

finding that the agency did not discriminate against complainant.1

The agency, through the Deputy Commissioner for Facilities, Assessment

and Management, explained that the Baltimore incumbent informed her

managers that she intended to retire. Because complainant had previous

experience in the agency's disability process, he believed she was best

positioned and appointed her through a lateral transfer to work with the

incumbent until she retired. In this way, he considered that complainant

would learn the job requirements and become acquainted with the staff to

ensure a smooth transition.2 In response, complainant contended that no

position existed, since the incumbent remained.3 However, notwithstanding

the incumbent's delayed retirement, complainant has not shown that the

agency's reasons were pretext for discrimination. The AJ concluded

that the agency articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for

its actions and that complainant did not demonstrate pretext.

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. We find

that the decision of the AJ accurately stated the facts and correctly

applied the pertinent principles of law.

After a review of the record in its entirety and consideration of

all statements submitted on appeal, including those not specifically

addressed, it is the decision of the Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission to affirm the agency's final decision, because the AJ's

ultimate finding, that unlawful employment discrimination was not proven

by a preponderance of the evidence, is supported by the record.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, the agency's decision is affirmed.

STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL

RECONSIDERATION (M0408)

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 (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

__01/14/2009______

Date

1 On June 6, 2005, the AJ granted summary judgment as to complainant's

claim in regard to her performance appraisal, and complainant has not

addressed this matter further.

2 The Deputy stated that a management review in Boston was not part of

his decision to transfer complainant.

3 Complainant also asserted that her transfer was an "adverse action,"

since the Baltimore position was less prestigious; that she was entitled

to compensatory damages; and that the AJ should have used "C.F.R. 753

regulations." None of these arguments demonstrate pretext, in that, the

analysis of claims claiming disparate treatment is patterned after the

three-step scheme announced in McDonnell Douglas Corporation v. Green,

411 U.S. 792 (1973). Once the complainant has established a prima facie

case, the agency is required to articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory

reason for its actions; to prevail, complainant must demonstrate, by a

preponderance of the evidence, that the agency's reason(s) for its action

was a pretext for discrimination, i.e., that the agency's reason was not

its real reason and that it acted on the basis of discriminatory animus.

See Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 253

(1981); St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (1993).

??

??

??

??

2

0120070039

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

Office of Federal Operations

P. O. Box 19848

Washington, D.C. 20036

4

0120070039