01a62137
06-20-2006
Patricia Banks, Complainant, v. John W. Snow, Secretary, Department of the Treasury, Agency.
Patricia Banks v. Department of the Treasury
01A62137
June 20, 2006
.
Patricia Banks,
Complainant,
v.
John W. Snow,
Secretary,
Department of the Treasury,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A62137
Agency No. TD 04-2611
Hearing No. 220-2005-00136X
DECISION
Complainant filed an appeal from the agency's February 14, 2006 decision
implementing the EEOC Administrative Judge's (AJ) decision finding no
discrimination.
Complainant, a lead human resource assistant, alleged that the agency
discriminated against her on the basis of her race (African American)
and age (D.O.B. 01/02/51) when on June 14, 2004, she learned that she
was denied a quality step increase (QSI) in lieu of a performance award.
At the conclusion of the investigation, complainant received a copy of the
investigative report and requested a hearing before an AJ. The AJ issued
a decision on February 7, 2006, without a hearing (summary judgment).
In her decision, the AJ found that complainant had failed to establish
a prima facie case of race or age discrimination because she was not
similarly situated to the human resource assistant, (Caucasian born
in 1967), who received the award, and because she did not present any
evidence to show that her race or age were factors in her not being
recommended for a QSI. In so finding, the AJ stated that complainant
was a lead human resource assistant and, as such, performed a different
job and different duties and held a higher grade than the QSI recipient.
In addition, the AJ found that complainant had not shown that she made
significant accomplishments on a continual basis throughout the rating
period to warrant a recommendation of a QSI, noting that the purpose
of the QSI was to provide incentive and recognition for excellence
in performance.
The Commission's regulations allow an AJ to issue a decision without a
hearing when the AJ finds that there is no genuine issue of material
fact. See 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.
To establish a prima facie case of race discrimination, a complainant
must show the following: (1) complainant was a member of the protected
class; (2) an adverse action was taken against complainant; (3) a
causal relationship existed between complainant's membership in the
protected class and the adverse action; and (4) other employees outside
of complainant's protected class were treated differently.
In order to establish a prima facie case of age discrimination,
complainant must show that she was over forty years of age, that
complainant was subjected to an adverse employment action and that
complainant was treated less favorably than other similarly situated
employees younger than complainant. See Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing
Prods., Inc. 530 U.S. 133, 142 (2000).
After a careful review of the record, the Commission finds that grant
of summary judgment was appropriate, as no genuine dispute of material
fact exists. Regarding age, complainant has failed to establish that
the QSI recipient, a human resource assistant, was similarly situated
to complainant, a lead human resource assistant. Regarding race
discrimination, complainant has failed to establish a causal nexus between
her membership in the protected class and her not having received a QSI.
Even assuming that complainant presented a prima facie case on each
protected basis, complainant has not shown that the agency's articulated
legitimate and nondiscriminatory reasons for awarding the QSI to another
employee and not awarding one to her were motivated by discriminatory
animus. See United States Postal Service Board of Governors v. Aikens,
460 U.S. 711, 713-714 (1983); Hernandez v. Department of Transportation,
EEOC Request No. 05900159 (June 28, 1990). Complainant's first line
supervisor (S-1), who supervised complainant since 1998, stated that
the criteria that she used in making a recommendation for a QSI were an
overall summary rating of 5.0, scope of performance, impact on customers
and organizational goals, and contribution made to the immediate
workgroup, section, and branch. S-1 stated that complainant was not
recommended because she had just recently attained an overall rating of
5.0 and had not made significant accomplishments on a continual basis
throughout the rating period to warrant a QSI. The record reveals that
complainant received below a 5.0 rating in 2002 and 2003, and received
a 5.0 rating in 2003 and 2004.
The record reveals that the QSI recipient in complainant's unit, who
was the only person recommended in the unit, received 5.0 ratings from
2002 through 2005. S-2 stated that assignments were given to the QSI
recipient because the leads were not available or the QSI recipient
took the initiative to go to S-1 for extra work when her daily work
was completed. Both S-1 and S-2 stated that the distribution of QSIs
were made based on the percentage outlined in the National Agreement.
The agency's finding of no discrimination is AFFIRMED.
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
June 20, 2006
__________________
Date