[Redacted], Vaughn L, 1 Complainant,v.James E. McPherson, Acting Secretary, Department of the Navy, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Jan 5, 2021

Appeal No. 2020001153 (E.E.O.C. Jan. 5, 2021)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Vaughn L,1 Complainant, v. James E. McPherson, Acting Secretary, Department of the Navy, Agency. Appeal No. 2020001153 Hearing No. 570-2017-00566X Agency No. 16-00052-01565 DECISION Complainant filed a timely appeal, pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.403, from the Agency’s October 31, 2019, 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. At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant was employed by the Agency as an Assistant Program Manager, GS-13, in Washington, D.C. On July 14, 2016, Complainant filed a formal complaint alleging that the Agency discriminated against him on the bases of race (African-American) and reprisal for prior protected EEO activity when: 1. On August 27, 2015, he became aware he was not selected for the position of Deputy Emergency Management Program Director advertised under Vacancy Announcement 139438. 2. On September 23, 2015, he became aware he was not selected for the position of Supervisory Emergency Management Specialist advertised under Vacancy Announcement 1433703. 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. 2020001153 2 3. On March 1, 2016, he became aware he was not selected for the Supervisory Operations Program Specialist position advertised under Vacancy Announcement SE60301-1563334K1251505. 4. On April 11, 2016, his second-level supervisor (S2) cancelled his training-related travel requests. 5. On December 12, 2016, his first-level supervisor (S1) emailed him about his FY17 action plan. In the email, S1 chastised him for the following objective: “develop a comprehensive management approach.” S1 stated that the Complainant “has been in the position long enough to have developed an approach.” Additionally, S1 told him to remove Contracting Officer Responsibility (COR) from his plan “until [he has] a contract to perform COR duties on.” 6. On December 16, 2016, S1 emailed him and stated that he did not timely revise his FY17 action plan despite the fact that S1 previously stated that the plans were due on December 22, 2016. S1 also included individuals outside of his (Complainant’s) chain-of-command on the message. 7. On December 16, 2016, S1 told him that he (S1) signed his FY17 action plan but wished to have additional discussion about some of the (Complainant’s) objectives. 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 AJ specifically found that the Agency articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for not selecting Complainant for the positions at issue. With regard to claim 1, the position of Deputy Emergency Management Program Director, the AJ noted that Complainant was not interviewed because his resume did not show that he had served as a Deputy or had the necessary operational experience required for the position. Regarding claim 2, the position of Supervisory Emergency Management Specialist, the AJ observed that Complainant was not interviewed because his resume did not indicate experience with Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear (CBRN) acquisition, as well as first-responder and dispatch services experience. With respect to claim 3, the position of Supervisory Operations Program Specialist, the AJ noted that Complainant was not interviewed because his resume failed to indicate that he had supervisory experience, among other things. In finding that Complainant did not establish that the Agency’s reasons were pretextual, the AJ noted that Complainant did not demonstrate that his qualifications were plainly superior to that of the selectees. The AJ also found that Complainant did not show that the Agency was motivated by discriminatory or retaliatory animus in not selecting him. 2020001153 3 As for claim 4, the AJ found that the record supported the Agency’s reason that Complainant was denied the travel due to insufficient funds. In addition, the AJ determined that the Agency’s actions regarding claims 5-7 were not severe or pervasive enough to rise to the level of a hostile work environment, and Complainant did not show that the Agency’s actions were motivated by discriminatory or retaliatory animus regarding the claims either. 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 (M0620) The Commission may, in its discretion, reconsider this appellate decision if the 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 2020001153 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, 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. 2020001153 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 January 5, 2021 Date