[Redacted], Luann L., 1 Complainant,v.Antony Blinken, Secretary, Department of State, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Oct 24, 2022

Appeal No. 2022000704 (E.E.O.C. Oct. 24, 2022)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Luann L.,1 Complainant, v. Antony Blinken, Secretary, Department of State, Agency. Appeal No. 2022000704 Hearing No. 570-2021-00162X Agency No. DOS-0489-19 DECISION On November 19, 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 5, 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. and Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Rehabilitation Act), as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 791 et seq. At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a Foreign Service Officer in the Agency’s Tech Camp Program Division, Office of Citizen Exchanges, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs in Washington, D.C. On November 19, 2019, Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging that the Agency subjected her to a hostile work environment and discriminated against her on the bases of race (African- American), disability (mental/physical), and reprisal for prior protected EEO activity when: 1. on August 6, 2019, Complainant was relieved of her supervisory duties as Branch Chief of the Tech Camp; and 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. 2022000704 2 2. on various dates, senior leadership made derogatory statements regarding “Black Lives Matter” and threatened to remove her reasonable accommodation. 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. On July 8, 2021, the AJ assigned to the case determined sua sponte that the complaint did not warrant a hearing and issued a Notice of Intent to Issue Summary Judgment (Notice). In the Notice, the AJ determined that Complainant failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination based on her protected classes, or retaliation. Even if she had, the AJ determined that the Agency had articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions. Specifically, Complainant was removed from her acting supervisory duties because she lacked the Level 2 Contracting Officer (COR) Certification required to continue in the Branch Chief role as alleged in claim 1. The individual that eventually replaced Complainant had the necessary requirements. Regarding Complainant’s harassment allegations raised in claim 2, the AJ determined that the record did not support a claim of hostile work environment and that they were proposing to dismiss the claim for failure to state a claim. In coming to this conclusion, the AJ determined that the events, singularly or collectively, did not raise to a level severe or pervasive enough to state a claim. The AJ noted that an unidentified individual allegedly made a statement during a meeting to the effect of “do Black lives matter”. Complainant overheard but was not present, and those who were, denied that such a statement was made. The AJ further determined that there were no threats from management to remove her reasonable accommodation. In contrast, it appeared management quickly approved Complainant’s request for accommodation. Furthermore, the AJ noted that Complainant was not alleging the Agency had failed to accommodate her or had taken her accommodation away. Ultimately, the AJ entered summary judgment in favor of the Agency. Both Complainant and the Agency responded to the AJ’s Notice. On October 6, 2021, the AJ, after considering Complainant’s and the Agency’s responses to their notice, issued a decision without a hearing in favor of the Agency. 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. Both Complainant and the Agency provided appellate statements. Complainant asserts that the circumstantial evidence demonstrated that the Agency’s actions were motivated by discrimination and that Complainant was subjected to reprisal and hostile work environment. For example, she reiterates that she clearly heard someone shout, “do Black lives really matter”, during a meeting. Complainant repeats her assertion that she clearly subjected to discrimination, retaliation, and a hostile work environment. Complainant requests that the Commission overturn the Agency’s decision. 2022000704 3 In response, the Agency asserts that Complainant’s appeal did not contain any sufficient arguments to rebut the AJ’s findings. The Agency requests that the Commission affirm its decision to implement the AJ’s no finding of discrimination. 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. (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). 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. On appeal, Complainant submitted an appellate brief generally arguing that summary judgment was inappropriate and repeated statements made in her opposition to the AJ’s Notice. However, aside from her blanket statements, Complainant does not offer anything that would demonstrate that a hearing was warranted, and that summary judgment was inappropriate. Even construing any inferences raised by the undisputed facts in favor of Complainant, a reasonable factfinder 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 2022000704 4 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). 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. 2022000704 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 24, 2022 Date