[Redacted], Roscoe P., 1 Complainant,v.Lloyd J. Austin III, Secretary, Department of Defense (Defense Logistics Agency), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Oct 13, 2022

Appeal No. 2022000660 (E.E.O.C. Oct. 13, 2022)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Roscoe P.,1 Complainant, v. Lloyd J. Austin III, Secretary, Department of Defense (Defense Logistics Agency), Agency. Appeal No. 2022000660 Hearing No. 410-2021-00078X Agency No. DLAN-20-0143 DECISION 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 October 20, 2021 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., and Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Rehabilitation Act), as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 791 et seq. BACKGROUND During the period at issue, Complainant worked as a Distribution Process Worker at the Agency’s facility in Anniston, Alabama. 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. 2 2022000660 On April 14, 2020, Complainant filed a formal EEO complaint alleging that the Agency discriminated against him based on his race (African American), color (Brown), sex (male) and disability.2 On May 4, 2020, the Agency accepted the formal complaint for investigation and determined that it was comprised of the following claims: On December 5, 2019, [Complainant was] terminated from his probationary Distribution Process Worker position. After an investigation into the complaint, the Agency provided Complainant with a copy of the report of investigation and notice of his right to request a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). Complainant timely requested a hearing. The AJ assigned to the case determined sua sponte that the complaint did not warrant a hearing and issued a decision without a hearing on September 21, 2021. The AJ’s decision noted that an Initial Conference was held with the parties on April 22, 2021 and that “further development of the record is unlikely to lead to a finding of discrimination.” The AJ found that the Agency articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for Complainant’s termination. Specifically, the AJ found that Complainant was a probationary employee who engaged in a verbal altercation with his supervisor, and that the altercation required a co-worker to stand between Complainant and his supervisor. The AJ found that Complainant failed to establish that the Agency’s articulated reason was pretext for discrimination. The AJ further stated that “[a]lthough Complainant alleges that a comparator was not terminated for similar conduct,…the alleged employee is not a comparator as she holds a different position than Complainant…Moreover,…the conduct at issue with the comparator is not of the same nature as Complainant. The record demonstrates that [the comparator] had been provoked by another employee who attempted to hit her with a forklift on multiple occasions. …The Agency alleged that due to the serious circumstances leading up to the incident…it was decided that a Letter of Warning was the appropriate discipline, however, warned [the comparator] that similar incidents in the future could lead to termination.” AJ Decision at 3, n.1. On October 20, 2021, the Agency issued a final order implementing the AJ’s decision finding no discrimination. The instant appeal followed. Complainant on appeal again asserts that a female probationary employee who engaged in misconduct was treated differently (only issued a letter of warning). The Agency requests that we affirm its final order implementing the AJ’s decision. 2 While the Agency’s acceptance letter only listed the bases of race and disability, the formal complaint reflects that Complainant also raised the bases of sex and color. Thus, we also consider these bases. 3 2022000660 ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS The Commission’s regulations allow an AJ to issue a decision without a hearing upon finding that there is no genuine issue of material fact. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.109(g). EEOC’s decision without a hearing regulation follows the summary judgment procedure from federal court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. The U.S. Supreme Court held summary judgment is appropriate where a judge determines no genuine issue of material fact exists under the legal and evidentiary standards. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986). In ruling on a summary judgment motion, the judge is to determine whether there are genuine issues for trial, as opposed to weighing the evidence. Id. at 249. At the summary judgment stage, the judge must believe the non-moving party’s evidence and must draw justifiable inferences in the non-moving party’s favor. Id. at 255. A “genuine issue of fact” is one that a reasonable judge could find in favor for 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 “material” fact has the potential to affect the outcome of a case. A claim of disparate treatment is examined under the three-part analysis first enunciated in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). For complainant to prevail, he must first establish a prima facie case of discrimination by presenting facts that, if unexplained, reasonably give rise to an inference of discrimination, i.e., that a prohibited consideration was a factor in the adverse employment action. See McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 802; Furnco Construction Corp. v. Waters, 438 U.S. 567 (1978). The burden then shifts to the agency to articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its actions. See Texas Dep’t of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 253 (1981). Once the agency has met its burden, the complainant bears the ultimate responsibility to persuade the fact finder by a preponderance of the evidence that the agency acted on the basis of a prohibited reason. See St. Mary’s Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (1993). This established order of analysis in discrimination cases, in which the first step normally consists of determining the existence of a prima facie case, need not be followed in all cases. Where the agency has articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the personnel action at issue, the factual inquiry can proceed directly to the third step of the McDonnell Douglas analysis, the ultimate issue of whether complainant has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the agency’s actions were motivated by discrimination. See U.S. Postal Serv. Bd. of Governors v. Aikens, 460 U.S. 711, 713-714 (1983); Hernandez v. Dep’t of Transportation, EEOC Request No. 05900159 (June 28, 1990); Peterson v. Dep’t of Health and Human Services, EEOC Request No. 05900467 (June 8, 1990); Washington v. Dep’t of the Navy, EEOC Petition No. 03900056 (May 31, 1990). To successfully oppose a decision by summary judgment, 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. 4 2022000660 Here, however, Complainant has failed to establish such a dispute.3 On appeal, Complainant asserts that a female comparator was treated differently by only being given a letter of warning for having an altercation with a co-worker. However, we find that the AJ properly addressed this matter in his decision and found that the circumstances surrounding the incident with the female employee were different compared to the situation with Complainant and his supervisor. Even construing any inferences raised by the undisputed facts in favor of Complainant, a reasonable factfinder could not find in his 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. 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 3 There is no record that the AJ issued a Notice of Intent to Issue a Decision Without a Hearing. Nevertheless, upon considering the entire record, including Complainant’s statement on appeal, we find that there is no genuine issue of material fact in dispute. 5 2022000660 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. 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. 6 2022000660 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 13, 2022 Date