[Redacted], Christopher E., 1 Complainant,v.John E. Whitley, Acting Secretary, Department of the Army, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Mar 16, 2021

Appeal No. 2020002845 (E.E.O.C. Mar. 16, 2021)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Christopher E.,1 Complainant, v. John E. Whitley, Acting Secretary, Department of the Army, Agency. Appeal No. 2020002845 Hearing Nos. 480-2019-00276X, 480-2019-00571X Agency Nos. ARIMPC18JUN02813, ARYONGSAN16MAY02111 DECISION Complainant filed a timely appeal, pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.403, from the Agency’s January 6, 2020, final order concerning an 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 a Supervisory Strategic Planning Specialist, Director of the Plans, Analysis and Integration Office, at the Agency’s Installation in Yongsan, South Korea. Agency No. ARYONGSAN16MAY02111, Hearing No. 480-2019-00571X On July 6, 2016, Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging that the Agency discriminated against him on the bases of race (African-American), color (brown), and reprisal for prior protected EEO activity when: 1. on April 19, 2016, via email, Complainant’s colleague, the Director for Human Resources (CW) accused him of a prohibited personnel practice violation by manipulating the hiring process by withholding a position for another 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. 2020002845 2 2. during April 29, 2016, through June 27, 2016, CW retaliated against him by not updating his office position descriptions and becoming non-responsive to work-related assignments associated with his office; 3. on April 20, 2016, via email, CW berated him by referring to him outside of his name and sex, calling him a liar, ignorant, childish and stated, "Be a man"; 4. on April 21, 2016, CW slandered Complainant by informing the Deputy Garrison Commander that Complainant was sexually harassing one employee and non-sexually harassing four employees; 5. on April 29, 2016, CW attempted to impose his culture on him by shaking hands on an unrelated matter and misleading the Deputy Garrison Commander to believe that their handshaking resolved his (Complainant’s) EEO complaint; and, 6. on June 27, 2016, CW accused him and his staff of personally attacking him upon Complainant’s refusal to protect CW and his staff’s unpunctuality with meeting work- related suspense issues. Agency No. ARIMPC18JUN02813, Hearing No. 480-2019-00276X On July 19, 2018, Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging that the Agency discriminated against him based on race (African American) and reprisal for protected EEO activity when, on May 2, 2018, Complainant became aware that the Colonel provided him a Commander's Award for Civilian Service as his Permanent Change of Station (PCS) award. After its investigation into the complaints, the Agency provided Complainant with a copy of the report of investigation and notice of right to request a hearing before an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) Administrative Judge (AJ). Complainant timely requested a hearing. The Agency submitted motions for a decision without a hearing; Complainant responded in detail. At some point the matters were combined for one decision by the AJ. The AJ subsequently issued a decision by summary judgment in favor of the Agency. The Agency issued its final order adopting the AJ’s finding that Complainant failed to prove discrimination as alleged. The instant appeal followed. Complainant provided a detailed and lengthy appellate brief, asserting that the AJ erred in issuing summary judgment. The Commission's regulations allow an AJ to grant summary judgment when he or she finds that there is no genuine issue of material fact. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.109(g). 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. 2020002845 3 In rendering this appellate decision we must scrutinize the AJ’s legal and factual conclusions, and the Agency’s final order adopting them, de novo. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.405(a)(stating that a “decision on an appeal from an Agency’s final action shall be based on a de novo review…”); see also Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive for 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 (EEO MD-110), at Chap. 9, § VI.B. (as revised, August 5, 2015)(providing that an administrative judge’s determination to issue a decision without a hearing, and the decision itself, will both be reviewed de novo). In order to successfully oppose a decision by summary judgment, a complainant must identify, with specificity, facts in dispute either within the record or by producing further supporting evidence and must further establish that such facts are material under applicable law. Such a dispute would indicate that a hearing is necessary to produce evidence to support a finding that the Agency was motivated by discriminatory animus. We note that Complainant’s appellate brief was incredibly detailed in his arguments and addressed a number of concerns with the AJ’s decision. For example, Complainant asserts that the AJ exhibited an alleged bias against African Americans and that the AJ’s decision failed to consider material evidence submitted by Complainant such as the Commander’s 15-6 Inquiry into CW. In that matter, we find that the AJ appropriately reviewed the record and addressed Complainant’s concerns, detailing that the referred to matter was not relevant to the claims at issue. We find that the arguments raised on appeal do not sufficiently establish that there were such material disputes in play that would have warranted a hearing. Even construing any inferences raised by the undisputed facts in favor of Complainant, a reasonable fact-finder could not find in Complainant’s favor. Upon careful review of the AJ’s decision and the evidence of record, as well as the parties’ arguments on appeal, we conclude that the AJ correctly determined that the preponderance of the evidence did not establish that Complainant was discriminated against by the Agency as alleged. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the Agency’s final order adopting the AJ’s 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. 2020002845 4 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). 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. 2020002845 5 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 March 16, 2021 Date