[Redacted], Sara S., 1 Complainant,v.John E. Whitley, Acting Secretary, Department of the Army, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Mar 16, 2021

Appeal No. 2020001204 (E.E.O.C. Mar. 16, 2021)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Sara S.,1 Complainant, v. John E. Whitley, Acting Secretary, Department of the Army, Agency. Appeal No. 2020001204 Hearing No. 530-2016-00142X Agency No. ARUSAR15MAR00772 DECISION On November 8, 2019, Complainant prematurely filed an appeal, pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.403(a), concerning her equal employment opportunity (EEO) complaint alleging employment discrimination in violation of Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Rehabilitation Act), as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 791 et seq., Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. Because the appeal was pending when the Agency issue its December 18, 2019 final action adopting the October 7, 2019 decision by an Equal Employment Opportunity (EEOC or Commission), we deem the appeal to be timely filed. At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant was employed by the Agency as a Unit Administrator Technician, GS-0303-05, with the 316th Expeditionary Sustainment Command in Corapolis, Pennsylvania and the 298th Support Maintenance Company in Clearfield, Pennsylvania. Complainant was also a Staff Sergeant (SSG) in the Army Reserves, a soldier military role. 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 2020001204 On April 10, 2016, Complainant filed an EEO complaint, as amended, alleging that the Agency discriminated against her based on her disability (perceived mental), age (54 & 55), national origin (Canadian), and reprisal when: 1. Since February 19, 2015, the person who was her first line supervisor (Civilian S1) in her civilian role and her third line supervisor (Military S3) in her SSG role created a false mental health history to support an aptitude rating on an official civilian employment related document; 2. On or about February 20, 2015, she received a negative performance counseling; 3. On February 20, 2015, she was referred but not interviewed or selected for the position of Unit Administrator, GS-0303-07 with the United States Army Reserve (USAR) in Altoona, Pennsylvania under Vacancy Announcement NCDEI54790421297996; 4. On or about March 6, 2015, Civilian S1/Military S3 ordered her to undergo a mental health evaluation for her civilian employment, citing age-related mental deficiencies as justification; 5. On March 13, 2015, Civilian S1/Military S3 emailed her at her civilian account, and copied her second line supervisor (Civilian S2) in her civilian role who also supported the Battalion Commander, notifying her of the above directed mental health evaluation. Subsequently, S2 called her, sent an email to her home email and a memorandum to the entire training section regarding the above mental health evaluation; and 6. On July 1, 2015, she was instructed to tum in her keys, banned from all 316th ESC. buildings and was placed on Administrative Leave. 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 AJ with the EEOC. 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 Agency issued a 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…”); 3 2020001204 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 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.2 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 2 Regarding issue 4, we agree with the AJ that S3, in his military capacity, ordered Complainant to undergo, exclusively in her capacity as an SSG, a mental health examination, so this did not constitute discrimination against her in her civilian capacity. We do not have jurisdiction over Complainant’s employment in her SSG role. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.103(d)(1). On issue 5, we agree with the AJ that that this regarded Complainant’s employment as an SSG, not civilian, and the disclosure was not made to the entire training section, as alleged. 4 2020001204 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. 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. 5 2020001204 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 16, 2021 Date