[Redacted], Anastacia D., 1 Complainant,v.Gina M. Raimondo, Secretary, Department of Commerce, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Oct 4, 2022

Appeal No. 2022003735 (E.E.O.C. Oct. 4, 2022)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Anastacia D.,1 Complainant, v. Gina M. Raimondo, Secretary, Department of Commerce, Agency. Appeal No. 2022003735 Hearing No. 510-2022-00145X Agency No. 63-2020-00749-D DECISION Complainant filed a timely appeal with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission), pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.403(a), from the Agency’s May 26, 2022, final decision 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. At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant was employed by the Agency as an Administrative Specialist, GS-0301-12, at the Agency’s Atlanta Regional Census Office, Census Investigative Services (CIS) in Atlanta, Georgia. On September 8, 2020, Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging that the Agency discriminated against her on the basis of reprisal for prior protected EEO activity under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 when, on or around July 21, 2020, Complainant was terminated one week after submitting a response to an EEO Investigator as a witness regarding an EEO complaint filed by another Agency employee. 1 This case has been randomly assigned a pseudonym which will replace Complainant’s name when the decision is published to non-parties and the Commission’s website. 2022003735 2 At the conclusion of the investigation, the Agency provided Complainant with a copy of the report of investigation and notice of her right to request a hearing before an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Administrative Judge (AJ). Complainant timely requested a hearing but subsequently withdrew her request. Consequently, the Agency issued a final decision pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.110(b). In the decision, the Agency assumed a prima facie case of discrimination and determined that management officials articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for Complainant’s termination. Specifically, Complainant’s supervisor affirmed that she received notification from Employee Relations that CIS Headquarters deemed Complainant’s background investigation “unfavorable.” The Team Lead that conducted Complainant’s post-employment security investigation determined that Complainant failed to clarify, dispute, and/or make reasonable efforts to resolve more than $22,500 in non-federal delinquent debts, which exceeded the allowable amount of $10,000. Additionally, Complainant failed to provide documentation to support her claim that the debts resulted from a fraudulent marriage. While Complainant asserted that other applicants with unfavorable backgrounds were deemed favorable and cleared for employment, the Agency found that Complainant failed to provide evidence or comparators that sufficiently refuted the Agency’s reasons for her termination. The Agency then determined that Complainant failed to show that the proffered reasons were an attempt to cover discriminatory or retaliatory motives. The Agency concluded that Complainant failed to prove that the Agency subjected her to discrimination as alleged. The instant appeal followed. 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 Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive for 29 C.F.R. Part 1614, at Chap. 9, § VI.A. (Aug. 5, 2015) (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”). Upon review of the parties’ submissions and the record as a whole, we find that the Agency’s final decision accurately recounts the relevant material facts and law. Concerning her allegations of disparate treatment discrimination, she must satisfy the three-part evidentiary scheme fashioned by the Supreme Court in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). The Agency, in its final decision, properly determined that management officials articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions. The Agency’s legitimate, nondiscriminatory explanation for Complainant’s removal was that Agency officials received notification that Complainant’s background check was deemed unfavorable. 2022003735 3 Moreover, a review of the record indicates that the underlying investigation results that triggered Complainant’s termination predate Complainant’s EEO and Agency officials involved in the termination denied knowledge of Complainant’s prior EEO activity Complainant offers no evidence that any of the reasons the Agency provided to explain its actions are pretextual. Beyond Complainant’s bare assertions, the record is devoid of any indication that discriminatory or retaliatory motives animated any of the Agency’s actions in this case. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the Agency’s final decision. STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL RECONSIDERATION (M0920) The Commission may, in its discretion, reconsider this appellate decision if Complainant or the Agency submits a written request that contains arguments or evidence that 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 for reconsideration must be filed with EEOC’s Office of Federal Operations (OFO) within thirty (30) calendar days of receipt of this decision. If the party requesting reconsideration elects to file a statement or brief in support of the request, that statement or brief must be filed together with the request for reconsideration. A party shall have twenty (20) calendar days from receipt of another party’s request for reconsideration within which to submit a brief or statement in opposition. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.405; Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive for 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 (EEO MD-110), at Chap. 9 § VII.B (Aug. 5, 2015). Complainant should submit his or her request for reconsideration, and any statement or brief in support of his or her request, via the EEOC Public Portal, which can be found at https://publicportal.eeoc.gov/Portal/Login.aspx Alternatively, Complainant can submit his or her request and arguments to the Director, Office of Federal Operations, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, via regular mail addressed to P.O. Box 77960, Washington, DC 20013, or by certified mail addressed to 131 M Street, NE, Washington, DC 20507. In the absence of a legible postmark, a complainant’s request to reconsider shall be deemed timely filed if OFO receives it by mail within five days of the expiration of the applicable filing period. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.604. An agency’s request for reconsideration must be submitted in digital format via the EEOC’s Federal Sector EEO Portal (FedSEP). See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.403(g). 2022003735 4 Either party’s request and/or statement or brief in opposition must also include proof of service on the other party, unless Complainant files his or her request via the EEOC Public Portal, in which case no proof of service is required. Failure to file within the 30-day time period will result in dismissal of the party’s request for reconsideration as untimely, unless extenuating circumstances prevented the timely filing of the request. Any supporting documentation must be submitted together with the 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 (S0610) 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 (Z0815) If you want to file a civil action but cannot pay the fees, costs, or security to do so, you may request permission from the court to proceed with the civil action without paying these fees or costs. Similarly, if you cannot afford an attorney to represent you in the civil action, you may request the court to appoint an attorney for you. You must submit the requests for waiver of court costs or appointment of an attorney directly to the court, not the Commission. The court has the sole discretion to grant or deny these types of requests. Such requests do not alter the time limits for filing a civil action (please read the paragraph titled Complainant’s Right to File a Civil Action for the specific time limits). FOR THE COMMISSION: ______________________________ Carlton M. Hadden’s signature Carlton M. Hadden, Director Office of Federal Operations October 4, 2022 Date