[Redacted], Tessa L., 1 Complainant,v.Louis DeJoy, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Southern Area), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Nov 18, 2021

Appeal No. 2020004284 (E.E.O.C. Nov. 18, 2021)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Melina K.,1 Complainant, v. Christine Wormuth, Secretary, Department of the Army, Agency. Appeal No. 2021002782 Hearing No. 420-2020-00199X Agency No. ARANAD19AUG03039 DECISION Complainant appeals to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission), pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.403(a), from the Agency’s April 29, 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. For the following reasons, the Commission AFFIRMS the Agency’s final order finding no discrimination. BACKGROUND At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as an Artillery Repairer, WG-6605-09, at the Agency’s Anniston Army Depot in Anniston, Alabama. On October 4, 2019, Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging that the Agency discriminated against her based on race (Black), sex (female), and in reprisal for prior protected EEO activity when it deemed her ineligible for the Artillery Repairer Leader position, WL-6605- 09, under Agency announcement SCAH197077915403. 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. 2021002782 2 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 EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). Complainant requested a hearing. Over Complainant’s objections, the AJ assigned to the case granted the Agency’s motion for a decision without a hearing and issued a decision by summary judgment in favor of the Agency. The Agency subsequently issued a final order fully implementing the AJ’s finding that Complainant failed to prove that the Agency subjected her to discrimination as alleged. The AJ found that, taking the facts as presented in the Report of Investigation and viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Complainant, she failed to create a genuine issue of material fact to establish discrimination based on race, sex, or reprisal. Assuming for the sake of argument that Complainant could establish a prima face case, the AJ found that the Agency articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its actions. As the AJ concluded, the Human Resources Specialist (HRS) who determined which candidates were eligible for referral to the selecting official (SO) for the position at issue found that Complainant was ineligible. The reason HRS found Complainant ineligible was because she noticed that Complainant had copied and pasted from the Artillery Repairer Leader position description directly into her resume when describing her job duties in a prior position. The AJ also found that the record contained no similarly situated employees who were treated more favorably than Complainant. The AJ further concluded that Complainant could not establish that the Agency’s legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons were pretextual: The record is devoid of any evidence that Complainant’s race, sex or participation in any prior protected activity motivated or factored into [HRS’s] decision to find Complainant ineligible for the position at issue. . . . Additionally, scrutiny of the selected candidates’ resumes, in contrast to that of the Complainant, fails to manifest evidence of pretext or a guise to discriminate against the Complainant by [HRS] and/or [SO] given that Complainant’s resume at page two supports [HRS’s] rationale; and her entire resume fails to manifest qualifications for the Artillery Repairer Leader that were plainly, demonstrably, or clearly superior to the qualifications of the selectees. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS The Commission’s regulations allow an AJ to grant summary judgment when she or he 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 nonmoving 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 2021002782 3 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 (EEO-MD-110), at Chap. 9, § VI.B. (as revised, August 5, 2015) (providing that an AJ’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 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 her 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. CONCLUSION Accordingly, we AFFIRM the Agency’s final order fully implementing the AJ’s decision finding no discrimination. 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. 2021002782 4 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. 2021002782 5 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 January 11, 2022 Date