Ronny S.,1 Complainant,v.Ryan K. Zinke, Secretary, Department of the Interior (Bureau of Indian Affairs), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Mar 8, 2018

0120161006 (E.E.O.C. Mar. 8, 2018)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013

Ronny S.,1
Complainant,

v.

Ryan K. Zinke,
Secretary,
Department of the Interior
(Bureau of Indian Affairs),
Agency.

Appeal No. 0120161006

EEOC Hearing No. 550-2015-00321X

Agency No. DOI-BIA-14-0272

DECISION

Complainant filed a timely appeal with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC
or Commission), pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.403(a), from the Agency's November 23, 2015
decision concerning his equal employment opportunity (EEO) complaint alleging employment
discrimination in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), as
amended, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. For the reasons which follow, the Commission AFFIRMS the
Agency’s decision.

BACKGROUND

At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a Criminal
Investigator at the Agency’s Office of Justice Services, Bureau of Indian Affairs in Tacoma,
Washington. On July 20, 2014, Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging that the Agency
discriminated against him on the basis of age (45) when he was reassigned from Office of Justice
Services (OJS), Drug Enforcement, Tacoma, Washington to OJS, Drug Enforcement, Browning,
Montana, and then to Carson City, Nevada on March 2, 2014.

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.
0120161006

2
At the conclusion of the investigation, the Agency provided Complainant with a copy of the
report of investigation (ROI) and notice of his right to request a hearing before an EEOC
Administrative Judge (AJ). Complainant timely requested a hearing but subsequently withdrew
his request. Consequently, the Agency issued a final decision pursuant to 29 C.F.R. §
1614.110(b). The decision concluded that Complainant failed to prove that the Agency
subjected him to discrimination as alleged.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

As this is an appeal from a decision issued without a hearing, pursuant to 29 C.F.R.
§ 1614.110(b), the Agency's decision is subject to de novo review by the Commission. 29 C.F.R.
§ 1614.405(a). See Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive for 29 C.F.R. Part
1614, at Chapter 9, § VI.A. (Aug. 5, 2015) (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”).

To prevail in a disparate treatment claim such as this, Complainant must satisfy the three-part
evidentiary scheme fashioned by the Supreme Court in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411
U.S. 792 (1973). He must generally establish a prima facie case by demonstrating that he was
subjected to an adverse employment action under circumstances that would support an inference
of discrimination. Furnco Constr. Co. v. Waters, 438 U.S. 567, 576 (1978).

The prima facie inquiry may be dispensed with where, as here, the Agency has articulated
legitimate and nondiscriminatory reasons for its conduct. See U.S. Postal Serv. Bd. of Governors
v. Aikens, 460 U.S. 711, 713-17 (1983); Holley v. Dep't of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Request No.
05950842 (Nov. 13, 1997). To ultimately prevail, Complainant must prove, by a preponderance
of the evidence, that the Agency's explanation is a pretext for discrimination. Reeves v.
Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (2000); St. Mary's Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509
U.S. 502, 519 (1993); Tex. Dep't of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 256 (1981); Holley,
supra; Pavelka v. Dep't of the Navy, EEOC Request No. 05950351 (Dec. 14, 1995).

The Agency articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for the reassignment of
Complainant’s position. The management officials decided that Complainant should be
reassigned to a location where he could be more effective. The Agency explained that
Complainant was reassigned2 from Tacoma, Washington to Browning, Montana because it
determined that his services could be more effectively utilized in Montana in investigating drug

2 The record shows that Complainant was initially reassigned to the Agency’s facility in
Browning, Montana. Before that assignment became effective, at Complainant’s request, he was
reassigned to the Agency’s facility in Carson City, Nevada where he was employed at the time of
filing the instant complaint.
0120161006

3
crimes on Native American reservations. In Washington, his investigations had been more
concerned with drug crimes committed outside reservations. According to the Agency, by
transferring Complainant to Montana, the Agency could more effectively focus on drug crimes
committed on reservations. One supervisor testified that: “the new Browning, Montana position
is now the highest producing [Division of Drug Enforcement] position for new drug cases that
occurred on Indian Country. This not only justifies the relocation of the Tacoma position, it
shows the high need for the agent positon there.” ROI at 125-126. This is a legitimate,
nondiscriminatory reason for the Agency’s actions. Complainant has failed to adduce any
evidence that the Agency’s explanation is a pretext designed to conceal discriminatory animus.

CONCLUSION

Based on a thorough review of the record and the contentions on appeal, including those not
specifically addressed herein, we AFFIRM the final agency decision.

STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0617)
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 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 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. A party
shall have twenty (20) calendar days of receipt of another party’s timely request for
reconsideration in 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). All requests and arguments must be submitted to the
Director, Office of Federal Operations, Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission. Complainant’s request may be submitted via regular mail to P.O. Box 77960,
Washington, DC 20013, or by certified mail to 131 M Street, NE, Washington, DC 20507. 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 agency’s request must be submitted in digital format via the EEOC’s Federal
Sector EEO Portal (FedSEP). See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.403(g). The request or opposition must also
include proof of service on the other party.
0120161006

4
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 (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. 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 8, 2018
Date