Ramona Erazo, Complainant,v.Tommy G. Thompson, Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionDec 22, 2003
01A35336_r (E.E.O.C. Dec. 22, 2003)

01A35336_r

12-22-2003

Ramona Erazo, Complainant, v. Tommy G. Thompson, Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services, Agency.


Ramona Erazo v. Department of Health and Human Services

01A35336

December 22, 2003

.

Ramona Erazo,

Complainant,

v.

Tommy G. Thompson,

Secretary,

Department of Health and Human Services,

Agency.

Appeal No. 01A35336

Agency No. CSR-EEO-010002

Hearing No. 120-A2-1306X

DECISION

Complainant timely initiated an appeal from the agency's final order

concerning her equal employment opportunity (EEO) complaint of unlawful

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.

The appeal is accepted pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405. In her formal

complaint, complainant alleged that the agency discriminated against

her on the basis of national origin (Honduras) when:

(1) From November 1999 to the present, the agency denied her training

on preparing 901's and system grant applications that was approved for

similarly situated American employees; and

On or about May 3, 2001, the agency failed to promote complainant to

a Grants Technical Assistant position.

At the conclusion of the investigation, complainant received a copy of the

investigative report and requested a hearing before an EEOC Administrative

Judge (AJ). Following a hearing, the AJ issued a decision finding no

discrimination.

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.

Upon review, the Commission finds that the agency proffered legitimate

non-discriminatory reasons for denying training when it responded that

complainant did not have the requisite job experience to prepare 901s and

system grant applications. The agency offered testimony that complainant

was unwilling to answer phone calls or assist in other areas as needed

and repeatedly made many errors in her work. Additionally, the agency

responded that complainant was not promoted to the position of Grants

Technical Assistant because employees must be first trained in preparing

901s and system grant application to be eligible for that position.

We find that complainant failed to persuasively rebut the agency's

legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for its actions.

Therefore, after a careful review of the record, the Commission finds that

the AJ's findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence in the

record and that the AJ's decision referenced the appropriate regulations,

policies, and laws. We note that complainant failed to present evidence

that any of the agency's actions were motivated by discriminatory animus

toward complainant's national origin. We discern no basis to disturb

the AJ's decision. Therefore, after a careful review of the record,

including complainant's contentions on appeal, the agency's response,

and arguments and evidence not specifically addressed in this decision,

we affirm the agency's final order.

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

_December 22, 2003_________________

Date