[Redacted], Dolores J., 1 Complainant,v.Robin Carnahan, Administrator, General Services Administration, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Oct 17, 2022

Appeal No. 2022000795 (E.E.O.C. Oct. 17, 2022)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Dolores J.,1 Complainant, v. Robin Carnahan, Administrator, General Services Administration, Agency. Appeal No. 2022000795 Hearing No. 570-2020-01490X Agency No. GSA-20-CO-C-0022 DECISION On November 29, 2021, Complainant filed an appeal with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission), pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.403(a), from the Agency’s November 1, 2021, final order 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. For the following reasons, the Commission AFFIRMS the Agency’s final order. BACKGROUND At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a Human Resources Specialist at the Agency’s Office of Human Resource Management in Washington, D.C. On February 13, 2020, Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging that the Agency discriminated against her on the bases of race (African-American), national origin (Jamaican), sex (female), color (Black), and reprisal for prior protected EEO activity under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 when: 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. 2022000795 2 1. On September 12, 2019, she was told that she would be reassigned to a new management team effective January 19, 2020; 2. On October 10, 2019, management did not approve her request for a 120-day detail; 3. On November 1, 2019, she was issued a letter of reprimand; 4. On May 8, 2020, she was issued a notice of proposed suspension; 5. On February 19, 2020, her training request needed a higher level of review before it was approved; and 6. On March 10, 2020, she was rudely directed to complete a task with a very short deadline. 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. Over Complainant's objections, the AJ assigned to the case granted the Agency’s August 16, 2021, motion for a decision without a hearing and issued a decision without a hearing on October 4, 2021. In their decision, the AJ determined that there were no genuine issues of disputed material fact or credibility, and summary judgment was appropriate. Specifically, the AJ found that the Agency articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions and treatment of Complainant. In addition, the AJ found that Complainant failed to show she was treated differently based on her protected classes or that the Agency's reasons were pretext. The AJ also found that Complainant was unable to prove that the conduct and treatment she alleged were motivated by her protected bases, nor that the conduct individually or collectively created a chilling effect or rose to the level of severity or pervasiveness necessary to state a claim of harassment. The Agency subsequently issued a final order adopting the AJ’s finding that Complainant failed to prove that the Agency subjected her to discrimination as alleged. The instant appeal followed. On appeal, Complainant contends that the discovery process was flawed, and that she did not understand the AJ's questions or instructions during the Initial Teleconference. Thereafter, Complainant reiterates her arguments regarding the merits of her claims. Complainant contends that the AJ decision is improper, and that there are disputes of material fact. 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- 2022000795 3 MD-110), at Chap. 9 § VI.B. (Aug. 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). We acknowledge Complainant’s arguments on appeal. However, we do not find that she has presented any arguments which would alter the AJ’s decision. Upon review of the AJ’s summary judgment decision, the arguments on appeal, and the record as a whole, we find that the AJ decision accurately recounted the relevant material facts and identified the legal standard for granting summary judgment. The AJ correctly determined that the record was sufficiently developed, and that Complainant failed to establish a genuine dispute of material fact. Accordingly, the AJ properly issued a decision without a hearing. The record reflects that Complainant was represented throughout the investigative process and was able to participate in the process. There is no evidence that Complainant was harmed or disadvantaged, nor that the AJ acted improperly. Complainant has not identified any evidence which should not have been sought after, nor any evidence which the Agency failed to develop. While Complainant summarily contends that the record was not adequately developed, and that there are issues of material fact, she has not pointed to any outstanding evidence which is absent from the record, nor did she identify which facts were in dispute. Rather, she has simply stated that the affidavits and other statements in the Report of Investigation are false, without providing any other information or evidence to the Commission in support of her statement. As such, we do not find that Complainant has presented evidence which is sufficient to uproot the AJ decision. We also agree that the AJ’s decision correctly identified the legal standards for Complainant to prove that she was subjected to discrimination based on sex, color, race, national origin, and reprisal. 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. 2022000795 4 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). 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. 2022000795 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 October 17, 2022 Date