Regina D. Allen, Complainant,v.Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner, Social Security Administration, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionMay 6, 2009
0120071033 (E.E.O.C. May. 6, 2009)

0120071033

05-06-2009

Regina D. Allen, Complainant, v. Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner, Social Security Administration, Agency.


Regina D. Allen,

Complainant,

v.

Michael J. Astrue,

Commissioner,

Social Security Administration,

Agency.

Appeal No. 0120071033

Hearing No. 230-2003-04175X

Agency No. 020386SSA

DECISION

Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405(a), the Commission accepts complainant's

December 14, 2006 appeal from the agency's November 14, 2006 final

order. Complainant alleged that the agency discriminated against her

in violation of 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.

For the following reasons, the Commission AFFIRMS the agency's final

order.

BACKGROUND

At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, complainant worked

as a GS-14 District Manager at the agency's Lansing, Michigan Field

Office. Complainant initially contacted an EEO counselor on March 7, 2002

and subsequently filed an EEO complaint on July 8, 2002. The complaint,

as amended, alleged that the agency subjected her to a hostile work

environment based on race (African American) and age (52) when:

1. On January 23, 2002, her Area Director (AD) admonished her to

do something about her drinking problem;

2. After employees of her office filed a grievance naming her,

the AD sent Area Director's Office (ADO) staff to her office to tell

her how to run it;

3. The AD overruled her preference for filling the Technical Expert

position, resulting in a selection that complainant did not want;

4. The AD did not support her management staff's proposal to reassign

T2 folder shipment to the office CDC;

5. The AD permitted her Assistant District Manager to bypass

complainant and report directly to him;

6. The AD was instrumental in the directive to complainant to allow

her office to participate in the "Take Our Children to Work" day;

7. The AD stopped direct communication with her and instead

communicates with her through the Area Administrative Assistant;

and that the agency discriminated against her in reprisal for prior EEO

activity when:

8. On September 15, 2002, she was reassigned to the position of

Social Insurance Specialist and placed alone in a conference room;

9. Since January 23, 2002, the AD has not provided her with a

performance discussion;

10. The Acting AD seized her budget book;

11. The Acting AD stated that she was improperly obtaining queries

to provide to the State Police; and

12. The AD attempted to force her into voluntary retirement.

Following investigation of her complaint, complainant requested a hearing

before an EEO Administrative Judge (AJ). The agency moved for a decision

without a hearing, arguing that no genuine issue of material fact existed.

Over complainant's objections, the AJ issued a decision without a hearing,

in favor of the agency.

The undisputed record shows that complainant worked as a District

Manager for seven years; the last four years were in Lansing, Michigan.

The productivity and morale of her office had been in decline. During a

January 23, 2002 review, the AD issued complainant's performance appraisal

and discussed a number of operational, personnel and administrative

issues with her. Within the discussion, the AD told complainant about

statements from various employees who said they had observed complainant's

personal problems, which included consuming alcohol. The AD advised

complainant of the availability of the Employee Assistance Program, if

this were true. Complainant countered that her decisions and actions were

being hyper-criticized. She noted that she always received Satisfactory

Evaluations.

On May 6, 2002, the AD requested a Personnel Management Evaluation

(PME) for Lansing. The PME team visited Lansing on June 25 and June 26,

2002, and interviewed 45 individuals. The PME team revealed widespread

morale issues stemming from complainant's conduct. The PME team noted

significant concerns regarding complainant's management style, office

performance and apparent power struggles. Complainant was relieved

of her duties as a District Manager on September 17, 2002, when she

was reassigned to the position of Social Insurance Specialist, Project

Manager, in the AD's Office. Complainant continued to receive the same

pay and retained her seniority level, but she was physically isolated

from the rest of the office. Complainants pointed to other managers, whom

complainant said made mistakes but were allowed more flexibility. The

record shows that the other employees identified by complainant were in

different offices or in different management positions.

The agency proffered two reasons for its actions. First, the agency

contended that complainant's performance had deteriorated to an

unacceptable level and she had created an environment of fear and

animosity in her office, prompting operational concerns.1 Complainant

did not point to any evidence of record to support her claim that the

agency's stated reasons were a pretext for discrimination. Instead,

she stated that her decisions were hyper-criticized and that she has

answered all of the questions from the PME team. The questions included

inquiries regarding her district going over-budget.

As noted, the AJ issued a decision without a hearing, on September 26,

2006. The AJ determined that there were no material facts in dispute. The

AJ noted, inter alia, that there was no indication that any member of the

review team was aware of complainant's EEO activity. The AJ found that

complainant failed to produce evidence to support her claims. The AJ noted

that the record indicated that complainant and her office had been flagged

as needing intervention from the Area Director's Office at least a year

before her reassignment and before her initial EEO counselor contact.

The agency subsequently issued a final order adopting the AJ's finding

that complainant failed to prove that she was subjected to discrimination

as alleged.

On appeal, complainant objects that the agency did not provide any

explanation of its treatment of other Black female district managers

at other locations. In addition, complainant states that the agency

relied on non-contemporaneous accounts; disputes the implications of

the agency's stated reasons; and argues that the reasons proffered by

the agency are not sufficient to justify its decisions.

The agency contends that its actions were prompted by operational concerns

and the determination that complainant had created an environment of

fear and animosity for her subordinates. The agency asserts that the

AJ correctly found that complainant offered no credible evidence to

show that the agency's actions were a pretext for race discrimination

or retaliation.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

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 EEOC Management Directive 110, Chapter 9, � VI.B. (November 9, 1999)

(providing that an administrative judge's "decision to issue a decision

without a hearing pursuant to [29 C.F.R. � 1614.109(g)] will be reviewed

de novo"). This essentially means that we should look at this case

with fresh eyes. In other words, we are free to accept (if accurate)

or reject (if erroneous) the AJ's, and agency's, factual conclusions and

legal analysis - including on the ultimate fact of whether intentional

discrimination occurred, and on the legal issue of whether any federal

employment discrimination statute was violated. See id. at Chapter 9,

� VI.A. (explaining that the de novo standard of review "requires that

the Commission examine the record without regard to the factual and

legal determinations of the previous decision maker," and that EEOC

"review the documents, statements, and testimony of record, including

any timely and relevant submissions of the parties, and . . . issue its

decision based on the Commission's own assessment of the record and its

interpretation of the law").

We must first determine whether it was appropriate for the AJ to have

issued a decision without a hearing on this record. The Commission's

regulations allow an AJ to issue a decision without a hearing when

he or she finds that there is no genuine issue of material fact.

29 C.F.R. � 1614.109(g). This regulation is patterned after the summary

judgment procedure set forth in Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that summary judgment

is appropriate where a court determines that, given the substantive

legal and evidentiary standards that apply to the case, there exists

no genuine issue of material fact. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,

477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986). In ruling on a motion for summary judgment,

a court's function is not to weigh the evidence but rather to determine

whether there are genuine issues for trial. Id. at 249. The evidence of

the non-moving party must be believed at the summary judgment stage and

all justifiable inferences must be drawn in the non-moving party's favor.

Id. at 255. 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.

If a case can only be resolved by weighing conflicting evidence, issuing

a decision without holding a hearing is not appropriate. In the context

of an administrative proceeding, an AJ may properly consider issuing a

decision without holding a hearing only upon a determination that the

record has been adequately developed for summary disposition. See Petty

v. Department of Defense, EEOC Appeal No. 01A24206 (July 11, 2003).

Finally, an AJ should not rule in favor of one party without holding

a hearing unless he or she ensures that the party opposing the ruling

is given (1) ample notice of the proposal to issue a decision without

a hearing, (2) a comprehensive statement of the allegedly undisputed

material facts, (3) the opportunity to respond to such a statement, and

(4) the chance to engage in discovery before responding, if necessary.

According to the Supreme Court, Rule 56 itself precludes summary

judgment "where the [party opposing summary judgment] has not had the

opportunity to discover information that is essential to his opposition."

Anderson, 477 U.S. at 250. In the hearing context, this means that the

administrative judge must enable the parties to engage in the amount

of discovery necessary to properly respond to any motion for a decision

without a hearing. Cf. 29 C.F.R. � 1614.109(g) (2) (suggesting that an

administrative judge could order discovery, if necessary, after receiving

an opposition to a motion for a decision without a hearing).

After a careful review of the record, we find that no genuine issue

of material fact exists. The record has been adequately developed,

complainant was given notice of the agency's motion to issue a decision

without a hearing, she was given an opportunity to respond to the motion

and a comprehensive statement of undisputed facts, and she responded to

the motion. She had the opportunity to engage in discovery but did not

file any motions to compel discovery. Although complainant responded to

the motion for a decision without a hearing, the responses did not point

to evidence that was material to the issue of discriminatory animus or

a hostile environment.

To establish a prima facie case of hostile environment harassment,

complainant must show that: (1) she is a member of a statutorily

protected class; (2) she was subjected to harassment in the form of

unwelcome verbal or physical conduct involving the protected class;

(3) the harassment complained of was based on the statutorily protected

class; and (4) the harassment affected a term or condition of employment

and/or had the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with the

work environment and/or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive

work environment. Humphrey v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal

No. 01965238 (October 16, 1998); 29 C.F.R. �1604.11. To ultimately

prevail, complainant must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence,

that the agency's explanation is pretextual. Reeves v. Sanderson

Plumbing Products, Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 143 (2000); St. Mary's Honor

Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 519 (1993).

Looking at the evidence in the light most favorable to complainant,

the record does not provide evidence to show that the agency's actions

were a pretext for discrimination because of complainant's race, age, or

retaliation. Further, with regard to the retaliation claim, there is no

evidence to show that the deciding officials were aware of complainant's

EEO activity. Even assuming for the sake of argument that complainant

established a prima facie case of discrimination or reprisal, there is

no evidence that would indicate that the agency's stated reasons with

regard to its actions (operational concerns and declining productivity)

were untrue or a pretext to discriminate against complainant because of

her race, age, or reprisal. Even if complainant's satisfactory evaluation

was sufficient to show that her performance had not deteriorated, the

agency's second reason (its assessment that complainant had created an

environment of fear and animosity for her subordinates) stands undisputed

by any evidence of record.

CONCLUSION

After a review of the record in its entirety, including consideration

of all statements submitted on appeal, it is the decision of the Equal

Employment Opportunity Commission to AFFIRM the agency's final order,

because the Administrative Judge's issuance of a decision without a

hearing was appropriate and a preponderance of the record evidence does

not establish that discrimination occurred as alleged.

STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL

RECONSIDERATION (M1208)

The Commission may, in its discretion, reconsider the decision in this

case if the complainant or the agency submits a written request containing

arguments or evidence which tends 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 to reconsider, with supporting statement or brief, must be filed

with the Office of Federal Operations (OFO) within thirty (30) calendar

days of receipt of this decision or within twenty (20) calendar days of

receipt of another party's timely request for reconsideration. See 29

C.F.R. � 1614.405; Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive for

29 C.F.R. Part 1614 (EEO MD-110), 9-18 (November 9, 1999). All requests

and arguments must be submitted to the Director, Office of Federal

Operations, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, P.O. Box 77960,

Washington, DC 20013. In the absence of a legible postmark, the request

to reconsider shall be deemed timely filed if it is received by mail

within five days of the expiration of the applicable filing period.

See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.604. The request or opposition must also include

proof of service on the other party.

Failure to file within the time period will result in dismissal of your

request for reconsideration as untimely, unless extenuating circumstances

prevented the timely filing of the request. Any supporting documentation

must be submitted with your 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 (S0408)

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 (Z1008)

If you decide to file a civil action, and if you do not have or cannot

afford the services of an attorney, you may request from the Court that

the Court appoint an attorney to represent you and that the Court also

permit you to file the action without payment of fees, costs, or other

security. See Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended,

42 U.S.C. � 2000e et seq.; the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended,

29 U.S.C. �� 791, 794(c). The grant or denial of the request is within

the sole discretion of the Court. Filing a request for an attorney with

the Court does not extend your time in which to file a civil action.

Both the request and the civil action must be filed within the time

limits as stated in the paragraph above ("Right to File a Civil Action").

FOR THE COMMISSION:

______________________________

Carlton M. Hadden, Director

Office of Federal Operations

May 6, 2009

Date

1 The record reflects that in 2001, the AD had received a third-stage

grievance filed by nine employees, who sought a cessation of abusive

and degrading treatment of staff by complainant. Two employees indicated

their plan to retire because of mistreatment by complainant.

??

??

??

??

2

0120071033

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

Office of Federal Operations

P.O. Box 77960

Washington, DC 20013

7

0120071033

8

0120071033