01a04803
02-27-2001
Rosalind Carter v. Social Security Administration
01A04803
February 27, 2001
.
Rosalind Carter,
Complainant,
v.
William A. Halter,
Acting Commissioner,
Social Security Administration,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A04803
Agency No. 99-0101-SSA
DECISION
Complainant timely initiated an appeal from a final agency decision
(FAD) concerning her complaint of unlawful 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.<1> The appeal is accepted pursuant
to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405. Complainant alleged that she was discriminated
against on the bases of her sex (female) and reprisal for a prior EEO
complaint under Title VII when she was not selected for a position
as Congressional Public Inquiries Analyst, GS-9 (Vacancy Announcement
Y-246).
During the relevant time, complainant was employed as a Development
and Processing Assistant, GS-7, at the agency's Falls Church, Virginia
facility. Believing she was a victim of discrimination, complainant
sought EEO counseling and subsequently filed a formal complaint on
November 12, 1998. At the conclusion of the investigation, complainant
requested a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge. However,
complainant later withdrew her request for a hearing and the agency
issued its instant final decision.
The record reveals that complainant was among the approximately
54 candidates who applied for a position. The agency selected two
male candidates. Relevant agency officials averred that complainant's
application contained sentence fragments, spelling errors and instances
where the verb and subject did not agree. Further, the application did
not appear to be tailored to the position and portions of it were faint
and difficult to read. In contrast, the applications of the selectees
were concise, grammatically correct and tailored to the position.
Complainant noted that she was included among the best qualified
candidates and asserted that the applicable organizational unit had
a pattern of selecting males. However, 26 of the 40 selections in the
past two years were of female candidates and the particular unit had 34
female employees and 12 male employees. In its FAD, the agency concluded
that complainant failed to establish pretext. Neither complainant nor
the agency offer any contentions on appeal.
Applying the standards set forth in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411
U.S. 792 (1973), and Hochstadt v. Worcester Foundation for Experimental
Biology, Inc., 425 F. Supp. 318, 324 (D. Mass.), aff'd, 545 F.2d 222
(1st Cir. 1976) (applying McDonnell Douglas to reprisal cases), the
Commission finds that complainant established a prima facie case of
sex and reprisal discrimination. However, the Commission further finds
that complainant failed to present evidence establishing that more likely
than not, the agency's articulated reasons for its actions were a pretext
for discrimination. In reaching this conclusion, we note that the record
neither reflects that complainant's qualifications for the position were
superior to those of the selectees nor supports the contention that the
organizational unit favored male candidates.
Therefore, after a careful review of the record, including arguments and
evidence not specifically addressed in this decision, we AFFIRM the FAD.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0900)
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 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 19848,
Washington, D.C. 20036. 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 (S0900)
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 (Z1199)
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 that the Court appoint
an attorney to represent you and that the Court 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 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
February 27, 2001
Date
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
For timeliness purposes, the Commission will presume that this decision
was received within five (5) calendar days after it was mailed. I certify
that this decision was mailed to complainant, complainant's representative
(if applicable), and the agency on:
__________________
Date
1 On November 9, 1999, revised regulations governing the EEOC's
federal sector complaint process went into effect. These regulations
apply to all federal sector EEO complaints pending at any stage in
the administrative process. Consequently, the Commission will apply
the revised regulations found at 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 in deciding the
present appeal. The regulations, as amended, may also be found at the
Commission's website at www.eeoc.gov.