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

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Mar 31, 2021

Appeal No. 2020003103 (E.E.O.C. Mar. 31, 2021)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Luigi H.1 Complainant, v. Thomas J. Vilsack, Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Agency. Appeal No. 2020003103 Hearing Nos. 510-2017-00406X, 510-2018-00268X Agency Nos. APHIS-2016-00502, APHIS-2017-00694 DECISION Complainant filed a timely appeal, pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.403(a), from the Agency’s April 13, 2020 final order concerning his 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 worked as a Plant Pathologist at the Agency’s Animal Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ) facility in Miami, Florida. On June 8, 2016, Complainant filed a formal complaint alleging that the Agency subjected him to a hostile work environment and discriminated against him on the bases of race (Black), national origin (Zambian), and reprisal for prior EEO activity. The complaint was docketed as Agency case number APHIS-2016-00502. On July 11, 2016, the Agency dismissed the matter for untimely EEO counselor contact pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.105(a)(1). On January 11, 2017, the Commission affirmed in part, and remanded in part the Agency’s decision. Luigi H. v. Dept. of Agriculture, EEOC Appeal No. 0120162529 (Jan. 11, 2017). The Agency accepted the remand and continued with the processing of the complaint. 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. 2020003103 2 On September 6, 2017, Complainant filed a second formal complaint alleging that the Agency subjected him to a hostile work environment and discriminated against him on the bases of race, national origin, and reprisal for prior EEO activity. The complaint was docketed as Agency case number APHIS-2017-00694. These two matters were later consolidated during the hearing stage. On September 14, 2018, during the Initial Conference, the AJ and the parties clarified the claims to be that the Agency subjected Complainant to a hostile work environment and discriminated against him on the bases of race (Black), and national origin (Zambian) when: 1. On February 9, 2016, Complainant was issued a letter of instruction; 2. in August 2014 and March 2015, Complainant was sent memos related to concerns about Complainant’s identifications; 3. in December 2014, Complainant was placed on a performance improvement plan; 4. on October 5, 2015, Complainant received an email questioning the integrity of his attendance report. Complainant additionally alleged hostile work environment and discrimination based on race, national origin and retaliation (prior EEO activity) when: 5. on February 8, 2017, Complainant was issued a letter of reprimand; 6. on April 24, 2017, management purposely increased their findings of false pathogen identifications and extended false findings to samples sent to National Identification Services (NIS); 7. on October 26, 2016, Complainant learned that management maintained a false database of his work; 8. on unidentified dates management ignored requests to appoint “objective national specialists” to review his identifications; 9. on February 8, and March 6, 2017, and other unidentified dates, Complainant was reprimanded; 10. on July 5, 2017, and on, management failed to return his samples; and 11. beginning November 7, 2016, management sent Complainant’s work to national specialists for review. 2020003103 3 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 timely 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 Agency issued its final order adopting the AJ’s finding that Complainant failed to prove discrimination 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. 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 2020003103 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. 2020003103 5 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 March 31, 2021 Date