01984281
10-24-2001
Patricia A. Giorgi, Complainant, v. Gale A. Norton, Secretary, Department of the Interior, Agency.
Patricia A. Giorgi v. Department of the Interior
01984281
10-24-01
.
Patricia A. Giorgi,
Complainant,
v.
Gale A. Norton,
Secretary,
Department of the Interior,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01984281
Agency Nos. FNP-95-115, FNP-97-027
DECISION
Complainant timely initiated an appeal from a final agency decision
(FAD) concerning her 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. The appeal is accepted pursuant to 29 C.F.R. �
1614.405. Complainant alleged that she was discriminated against on
the bases of sex (female) and reprisal (prior protected activity under
Title VII) when:
FNP-95-115
(1) the Deputy Associate Regional Director (DARD) was unavailable for
consultation, withheld information necessary for her to do her job,
undermined her authority with her subordinates, showed bias in accepting
allegations, and made accusations and attacks on her character;
(2) the DARD did not provide her with a timely performance appraisal for
fiscal year (FY) 1994, gave her a preliminary rating of �unacceptable�
on two critical elements, and threatened to place her on a performance
improvement plan (PIP);
(3) the DARD did not provide her with timely performance standards for
FY 1994 and FY 1995;
(4) the DARD refused to submit her request for reclassification of
her position, which she felt was graded lower than was warranted due
to a lack of consideration of new factors which were part of the new
classifications guidelines;
(5) she was not selected for a Team Manager position within the new
interim organization; and
(6) the DARD and the Field Director failed to provide her with feedback
on her self-assessment of her performance and did not provide a mid-year
evaluation as she requested;
and on the basis of reprisal (prior protected activity under Title
VII) when:
(7) the DARD changed the FY 1995 performance ratings of her subordinate
employees without conferring with her;
(8) the DARD divulged the FY 1995 performance ratings she had proposed
for her former subordinate employees and he promised to change the
ratings for those employees for whom he was the reviewing official;
(9) management gave no recognition to her for her accomplishments during
her tenure as Division Chief;
(10) her former subordinate employees have refused to provide mail
service and answer phones and they took her furniture and computer
equipment without permission from her current supervisor;
(11) the Field Director has made little effort in assisting her with
relocation;
(12) the Field Director and the Deputy Field Director have delayed
processing of her revised position description; and
(13) she received her FY 1994 and FY 1995 performance ratings from the
Deputy Associate Regional Director and the Field Director which rated
her at level 3 (fully successful);
and on the bases of sex and reprisal when:
FNP-97-027
(14) The Deputy Field Director interfered with the resolution of her
grievances when he halted the processing of a position description
establishing her as a supervisory outdoor recreation planner in the
capacity of Deputy Team Manager.
The record reveals that at the outset of the events at issue, complainant
was employed as Chief, Rivers, Trails, and Conservation Assistance,
Omaha, Nebraska within the agency's Midwest Region, Office of Planning
and Resource Preservation. Believing she was a victim of discrimination,
complainant sought EEO counseling and subsequently filed formal complaints
on August 16, 1995, and November 29, 1996. At the conclusion of the
investigation of her consolidated complaints, complainant was informed
of her right to request a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge
or alternatively, to receive an immediate final agency decision (FAD).
Complainant requested an immediate FAD.
In its FAD, the agency found with respect to each allegation that
complainant either had established a prima facie case of sex and/or
reprisal discrimination, or assumed for the sake of argument that she
had and proceeded to articulate its response to each claim. The agency
concluded, with regard to each allegation, that complainant had not
produced evidence sufficient to establish that its proffered explanations
were pretexts for sex and/or reprisal discrimination.
Complainant filed a lengthy statement in support of her appeal in
which she chiefly contends that the focus of the investigation and,
consequently, the agency's analysis of her claims, was inaccurate, and
offers alternate accounts of the events detailed in the FAD. The agency
did not reply to complainant's appeal.
Applying the standards set forth in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411
U.S. 792 (1973), and Hochstadt v. Worcester Foundation for Experimental
Biology, Inc., 425 F. Supp. 318, 324 (D. Mass.), aff'd, 545 F.2d 222
(1st Cir. 1976) (applying McDonnell Douglas to reprisal cases), the
Commission finds that the agency, in each instance, met its burden to
articulate a legitimate, non-discriminatory explanation for its actions.
The Commission further finds that complainant failed to present evidence
that more likely than not, the agency's articulated reasons for its
actions were a pretext for sex or reprisal discrimination. Therefore,
after a careful review of the record, including complainant's statement
in support of her appeal, the Commission AFFIRMS the FAD.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0701)
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 (S0900)
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:
______________________________
Carlton M. Hadden, Director
Office of Federal Operations
___10-24-01_______________
Date