[Redacted], Lori L., 1 Complainant,v.Thomas J. Vilsack, Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Apr 7, 2022

Appeal No. 2022001382 (E.E.O.C. Apr. 7, 2022)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Lori L.,1 Complainant, v. Thomas J. Vilsack, Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Agency. Appeal No. 2022001382 Hearing No. 550-2020-00459X Agency No. FPAC-2020-00409 DECISION Complainant filed an appeal, pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.403, from the Agency’s January 10, 2022 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. The Agency’s decision finding no discrimination is AFFIRMED. At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant was employed by the Agency as a Water Quality and Quantity Team (WQQT) Leader, GS-15, in the Natural Resources Conservation Service’s West National Technology Support Center (WNTSC) in Portland, Oregon. On March 6, 2020, Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging discrimination and harassment based on sex (female) and in reprisal for prior EEO activity when: 1. On various occasions including November 1-7, 2019, her first-level supervisor (S1): - undermined her authority and impeded her ability to perform her duties; 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. 2022001382 2 - interfered with her ability to respond to and/or assist with a Technical Assistance request from her colleague in Missouri;2 and - contacted her subordinate regarding her FY (Fiscal Year) 2019 performance review, without Complainant’s knowledge and input; and 2. On several dates, she was subjected to various incidents of harassment including, but not limited to: a. on or around March 4, 2019, S1 undermined her authority regarding the Santa Clara Pueblo Stream Corridor Planning and Watershed project; b. on or around May 17, 2019, S1 undermined her authority when he advised her subordinates of a change in the telework policy without first advising her of the change; c. on or around September 25, 2019, S1 denied her the opportunity to chair a Science and Technology (S&T) meeting in his absence; d. on or around October 8, 2019, S1 excluded her from the Conservation Activity Plans (CAP) process; and e. on or around November 7, 2019, S1 contacted her subordinate regarding the use of Agricultural Conservation Experienced Services (ACES) funding position for an outside source. After its investigation into the complaint, 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 requested a hearing. The Agency submitted a motion for a decision without a hearing. The AJ subsequently issued a decision by summary judgment in favor of the Agency. The AJ found that the Agency articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its actions. The AJ further found that Complainant failed to show that any of the discrete actions were motivated by discrimination and with regard to her claim of harassment, she failed to show that it was related to any protected basis of discrimination. Regarding claim 1, S1 denied he undermined Complainant’s supervisory authority. Specifically, S1 indicated that he, as a WNTSC Center Director, merely responded to a former Missouri State Conservationist’s request to the WNTSC for technical assistance. S1 further indicated that he, as Complainant’s supervisor, received a notification that one of her subordinates had not acknowledged completion of his annual performance appraisal. S1 first called Complainant concerning this issue, but she was unavailable. Thus, stated S1, he called the employee and resolved the issue immediately. 2 Although the issue was originally identified as involving Time and Attendance (T/A), Complainant corrected that TA referred to Technical Assistance. 2022001382 3 Regarding claim 2, S1 indicated that he received a direct email request from a New Mexico State Conservationist for assistance. The AJ found that S1 properly responded directly to the request and copied Complainant in his response stating to coordinate with Complainant and her staff. Regarding the telework matter, during a May 2019 WNTSC staff meeting, Complainant was not present and S1 merely responded to staff members’ questions about the Agency’s recent telework policy. S1 noted that he had been very flexible with Complainant regarding telework and allowed her to telework more days than permitted. Regarding the S&T meetings, the meetings were chaired by the Deputy Chief of S&T, and S1 had no delegation authority to chair the meetings. The meetings were informal “check-in” sessions for directors. In S1’s absence, Complainant attended the meetings. S1 stated that the CAP process was ongoing, and Complainant had been attending the CAP meetings. Regarding ACES program positions, S1 stated that after learning one of the positions became vacant, he called Complainant to discuss the matter, but she was unavailable. He thus called one of Complainant’s subordinates, who originally secured funding for ACES program, and followed up with Complainant. The Agency issued its final order adopting the AJ’s finding that Complainant failed to prove discrimination or harassment as alleged. The instant appeal followed. 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. 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. Here, however, Complainant has failed to establish such a dispute. 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 finding no discrimination. 2022001382 4 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). 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). 2022001382 5 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 April 7, 2022 Date