01984262
04-25-2000
Ruderic Ingram, Complainant, v. Janet Reno, Attorney General, Department of Justice, (Federal Bureau of Prisons), Agency.
Ruderic Ingram v. Department of Justice
01984262
April 25, 2000
Ruderic Ingram, )
Complainant, )
) Appeal No. 01984262
v. ) Agency Nos. P-93-8253; P-94-8559;
) P-95-8668; P-95-8675
Janet Reno, )
Attorney General, )
Department of Justice, )
(Federal Bureau of Prisons), )
Agency. )
)
DECISION
Complainant timely initiated an appeal from a final agency decision (FAD)
concerning his equal employment opportunity (EEO) complaint of unlawful
employment discrimination on the bases of race (African-American), sex
(male), reprisal (prior EEO activity), and physical disability (back
injury), in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,
as amended, 42 U.S.C. � 2000e et seq.; and the Rehabilitation Act of
1973,<1> as amended, 29 U.S.C. � 791, et seq.<2> Complainant alleges he
was discriminated against on the above-stated bases when: (1) he was not
selected for the positions of Legal Technician, GS-7/8, and Contract
Specialist, GS-5/7/9, at the Federal Correctional Institution (FCI)
in Memphis, Tennessee. Complainant also alleges he was discriminated
against on the above-stated bases as well as due to his age (45),
pursuant to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), as
amended, 29 U.S.C. � 621 et seq., when: (2) he was not selected for the
positions of Case Manager or Drug Abuse Treatment Specialist at the FCI
in Lompoc, California in 1994; (3) he was rated Minimally Satisfactory
in his significant incident log on August 4, 1994; (4) his supervisor
allegedly made a false statement to executive management at the FCI in
Memphis; and (5) he was not selected for a Legal Instruments Examiner
position or one of two Case Manager positions at the FCI in Memphis.
The appeal is accepted in accordance with EEOC Order No. 960.001.
For the following reasons, the agency's decision is AFFIRMED as CLARIFIED.
The record reveals that during the relevant time, complainant was employed
as a GS-7 Inmate System Officer at the agency's FCI in Lompoc, California.
In 1991, complainant contacted an EEO Counselor on two occasions about
not receiving a promotion and negative write-ups, but did not file a
formal complaint at that time. On March 22, 1992, complainant applied
for the positions of Legal Technician (P1) and Contract Specialist
(P2) at the FCI in Memphis, and was not selected for either position
by the Associate Warden (AW),(Black male) in favor of a White female
(S1) for P1 and a Black female (S2) for P2 at the GS-5 level. The AW
testified that he did not select complainant for either position because
his supervisors (Black female; White male) had concerns about his work
ethic and his performance in his current position. The record further
reflects that complainant was not selected for one of the four Case
Manager positions (P3) in March of 1994, in favor of a White male and a
White female chosen from the best qualified list, and a White male and
a White female chosen from the reassignment list. In addition, for the
Drug Abuse Treatment Specialist position (P4), the AW selected a Black
male from the reassignment list and a White male from the best qualified
list, while complainant had not made the best qualified list due to his
"Fully Successful" evaluation and lack of experience in group counseling.
Complainant also applied for the position of Legal Instruments Examiner
(P5) and one of two vacant Case Manager (Correctional Treatment
Specialist) positions (P6) in 1995, but was not selected in favor of
a Black male and a White female for the P5 vacancies and a Black male
for P6. The record reflects that complainant was on the best qualified
list for P5, but the selectee was chosen due to his "Exceeds" evaluation,
while the selectees for P6 each had "Outstanding" evaluations.
Believing he was a victim of discrimination, complainant sought EEO
counseling and subsequently, filed formal complaints with the agency on
March 10, 1993, and October 11, 1994. The complaints were consolidated
for investigation, and at the conclusion of the investigation, complainant
received a copy of the investigative report and requested a hearing before
an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) Administrative Judge
(AJ). Following a hearing, the AJ issued a Recommended Decision (RD)
finding no discrimination.
The AJ initially found that complainant established a prima facie case
of race and sex discrimination regarding P1 because he is a member of
protected classes, applied for and was qualified for the position in
question, and a person outside his protected classes was selected.
However, the AJ found that the agency articulated a legitimate,
nondiscriminatory reason for not selecting complainant for P1, as
AW stated that he was concerned about complainant's work ethic and
"Fully Successful" performance appraisal as well as the fact that S1
had previously worked as a GS-12 in a similar position. The AJ further
found that while complainant failed to establish a prima facie case of
race discrimination with regard to P2 as the selectees are Black, he
demonstrated a prima facie case of sex discrimination as the selectee is
female and thus outside of complainant's protected class. However, the
AJ found that the agency articulated legitimate reasons for selecting S2,
due to her background in business and "Exceeds" performance appraisal.
Finally, the AJ found that while complainant established a prima facie
case of reprisal for his nonselection to P1 and P2, the agency articulated
legitimate reasons, stated above, for choosing the selectees. The AJ
also found that complainant failed to establish that more likely than
not, the agency's articulated reasons were a pretext for discrimination
as regards his nonselection for P1 and P2.
The AJ found that complainant failed to establish a prima facie case of
disability discrimination regarding any of his allegations, as although
he suffered an on-the-job back injury, he did not demonstrate that
this injury substantially limited one or more major life activities as
required by the Rehabilitation Act, or that his nonselection for any of
the positions he applied for was due to a disability. The AJ further
found that complainant failed to establish a prima facie case of age
discrimination regarding his nonselection for any of the positions
he applied for, as persons both older and younger than himself and
who received "Exceeds" performance appraisals were considered and not
selected.
Regarding P3, the AJ found that the agency articulated legitimate reasons
for choosing the selectees over the complainant, as one selectee had an
"Exceeds" performance appraisal as a Correctional Treatment Specialist
Trainee, while the other was a Trainee in the program, and AW expressed
concerns over complainant's prior work performance. The AJ then found
that complainant failed to demonstrate that the agency's legitimate
reasons were pretextual in nature. The AJ then found that complainant
failed to establish a prima facie case of race discrimination regarding
his nonselection for P4, as he was not included on the best qualified
candidates list. In any event, the AJ found that the agency articulated
legitimate reasons for choosing the selectees, as they each had "Exceeds"
performance evaluations and complainant had exhibited performance
problems. The AJ further found that complainant failed to establish
a prima facie case of race, age or sex discrimination regarding the
"Minimally Satisfactory" rating in his significant incident log, as
he failed to demonstrate that similarly situated employees not in his
protected classes were treated differently.<3> The AJ found that while
complainant did establish a prima facie case of reprisal discrimination
regarding this allegation, the agency articulated legitimate reasons for
rating complainant as it did, namely, that his organizational skills were
lacking and he had not followed instructions. The AJ further found that
the agency's reasons were not proven to be pretextual.
Finally, the AJ found that complainant failed to establish a prima facie
case of race or sex discrimination regarding his nonselection for P5,
as the selectee is a Black male. The AJ found that while complainant
demonstrated a prima facie case of race and sex discrimination regarding
one of the P6 Case Manager positions, as the selectee is a White female,
the agency articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons, namely,
that the agency placed a heavy emphasis on performance evaluations and
the selectee received an "Exceeds" evaluation. The AJ further found that
complainant failed to demonstrate that the agency's reasons were a pretext
for discrimination. In addition, the AJ found that while complainant
established a prima facie case of reprisal regarding his nonselection for
P5 and P6, the agency articulated legitimate and nonpretextual reasons
for his nonselection, namely, that complainant was not selected as the
selectees had received superior performance appraisals. The agency's
FAD adopted the AJ's RD. Complainant makes no new contentions on appeal,
and the agency requests that we affirm the FAD.
After a careful review of the record, the Commission finds that the
AJ's RD summarized the relevant facts and referenced the appropriate
regulations, policies, and laws. We find that complainant failed
to present evidence that it was more likely than not that any of the
agency's actions in not selecting him for P1-P6 were in retaliation for
complainant's prior EEO activity or were motivated by discriminatory
animus toward complainant's race or sex. A review of the record
establishes that while complainant possessed advanced educational degrees
and was placed on the best qualified list for many of the positions he
applied for, his supervisors credibly stated that he consistently received
"Fully Successful" performance appraisals due to poor organizational
skills and failure to follow policy, which led to his nonselections when
he was directly competing with applicants who had received "Exceeds"
ratings.
However, the Commission finds that, contrary to the AJ's finding,
complainant demonstrated a prima facie case of age discrimination
regarding his nonselections for P3, P5 and P6, he was at least
40 years old, applied for positions for which he was qualified as
he was placed on the best qualified list, and was not selected in
favor of younger applicants. The AW clearly gave two reasons for not
selecting complainant: the selectees superior performance appraisals
and complainant's performance problems. Both of these reasons are
ostensibly legitimate and nondiscriminatory. We further find after
consideration of the record that complainant has not established that
his non-selection for P3, P4 and P5 resulted from a discriminatory or
retaliatory motive on the part of the agency. The record in this case
reflects management's genuinely held belief that while complainant
was rated as qualified for the positions, the selectees were better
suited for the positions. Texas Department of Community Affairs
v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 253 (1981); Loeb v. Textron, 600 F.2d 1003
(1st Cir. 1979); Fodale v. Department of Health and Human Services,
EEOC Request No. 05960344 (October 16, 1998). We thus discern no basis
to disturb the AJ's findings of no discrimination which were based on a
detailed assessment of the record and the credibility of the witnesses.
See Gathers v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Request No. 05890894
(November 9, 1989); Wrenn v. Gould, 808 F.2d 493, 499 (6th Cir. 1987);
Anderson v. Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 575 (1985). Therefore, after a
careful review of the record and arguments and evidence not specifically
addressed in this decision, the FAD is AFFIRMED.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0300)
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 64
Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659 (1999) (to be codified and hereinafter referred
to as 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 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,661 (1999) (to be codified and hereinafter
referred to as 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).
COMPLAINANTS' RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (S0400)
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:
April 25, 2000
Date Carlton M. Hadden, Acting Director
Office of Federal Operations
1 The Rehabilitation Act was amended in 1992 to apply the standards in
the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) to complaints of discrimination
by federal employees or applicants for employment. Since that time,
the ADA regulations set out at 29 C.F.R. Part 1630 apply to complaints
of disability discrimination. These regulations can be found on EEOC's
website: www.eeoc.gov.
2 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 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644 (1999), where applicable, in deciding the
present appeal. The regulations, as amended, may also be found at the
Commission's website at www.eeoc.gov.
3 The AJ also found that complainant failed to introduce evidence that
his supervisor made a false statement about him.