0120090276
02-10-2009
Philip N. Porter, Complainant, v. Tom Vilsack, Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Agency.
Philip N. Porter,
Complainant,
v.
Tom Vilsack,
Secretary,
Department of Agriculture,
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120090276
Agency No. RD200700072
DECISION
On October 20, 2008, complainant filed an appeal from the agency's
September 26, 2008 final decision concerning his equal employment
opportunity (EEO) complaint alleging employment discrimination in
violation of 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.
The appeal is accepted pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405(a). For the
following reasons, the Commission affirms the agency's final decision.
BACKGROUND
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, complainant was an
applicant for employment at the agency's Florida and U.S. Virgin Islands
District Office in Gainesville, Florida. On December 4, 2006, complainant
filed an EEO complaint alleging that he was discriminated against on the
bases of his disability (schizophrenia), age (58 at the relevant time),
and reprisal for prior protected EEO activity when, on October 5, 2006,
he was not selected for the position of Loan Specialist, GS-1165-9/11/12,
under vacancy announcement number FL-06-11.
At the conclusion of the investigation, complainant was provided with a
copy of the report of investigation and notice of his right to request
a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). In accordance with
complainant's request, the agency issued a final decision pursuant to
29 C.F.R. � 1614.110(b). The decision concluded that complainant failed
to prove that he was subjected to discrimination as alleged.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
As this is an appeal from a decision issued without a hearing, pursuant
to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.110(b), the agency's decision is subject to de novo
review by the Commission. 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405(a). See EEOC Management
Directive 110, Chapter 9, � VI.A. (November 9, 1999) (explaining that
the de novo standard of review "requires that the Commission examine
the record without regard to the factual and legal determinations of the
previous decision maker," and that EEOC "review the documents, statements,
and testimony of record, including any timely and relevant submissions
of the parties, and . . . issue its decision based on the Commission's
own assessment of the record and its interpretation of the law").
To prevail in a disparate treatment claim such as this, complainant
must satisfy the three-part evidentiary scheme fashioned by the Supreme
Court in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). He
must generally establish a prima facie case by demonstrating that
he was subjected to an adverse employment action under circumstances
that would support an inference of discrimination. Furnco Construction
Co. v. Waters, 438 U.S. 567, 576 (1978). The prima facie inquiry may be
dispensed with in this case, however, since the agency has articulated
legitimate and nondiscriminatory reasons for its conduct. See United
States Postal Service Board of Governors v. Aikens, 460 U.S. 711,
713-17 (1983); Holley v. Department of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Request
No. 05950842 (November 13, 1997). To ultimately prevail, complainant must
prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the agency's explanation
is a pretext for discrimination. Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products,
Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 120 S.Ct. 2097 (2000); St. Mary's Honor Center
v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 519 (1993); Texas Department of Community
Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 256 (1981); Holley v. Department of
Veterans Affairs, EEOC Request No. 05950842 (November 13, 1997); Pavelka
v. Department of the Navy, EEOC Request No. 05950351 (December 14, 1995).
In a non-selection case, pretext may be demonstrated by a showing that
complainant's qualifications are observably superior to those of the
selectee. Bauer v. Bailor, 647 F.2d 1037, 1048 (10th Cir. 1981); Williams
v. Department of Education, EEOC Request No. 05970561 (August 6, 1998).
Here, we find that assuming, arguendo, complainant established a prima
facie case of disability, age, and reprisal discrimination, the agency
nonetheless articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its
actions. The record reflects that although complainant was forwarded
to the recommending official (RO) for consideration, the RO stated
that the selectee was the best-qualified applicant for the position
at issue. Specifically, the RO stated that the selectee had experience
as a Rural Development (RD) Specialist, was "very knowledgeable about
how loans worked" and had "a significant working knowledge of many of
the RD programs." Additionally, the RO stated that the selectee had
already worked for the agency for a number of years. In contrast, the
RO stated that although complainant "was well spoken and had significant
real estate experience," he did not have as much relevant experience
as the selectee. We find that complainant proffered no evidence to
show that his qualifications for the position at issue were observably
superior to those of the selectee. We further find that complainant has
not shown that the agency's articulated reasons for his non-selection
were a pretext for unlawful disability, age, or reprisal discrimination.
Accordingly, we AFFIRM the agency's final decision finding no
discrimination.
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
February 10, 2009
Date
2
0120090276
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P. O. Box 19848
Washington, D.C. 20036
4
0120090276
5
0120090276