0120091410
07-14-2009
Scotty R. Hall, Complainant, v. Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General, Department of Justice, (Bureau of Prisons), Agency.
Scotty R. Hall,
Complainant,
v.
Eric H. Holder, Jr.,
Attorney General,
Department of Justice,
(Bureau of Prisons),
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120091410
Agency No. P-2005-0247
Hearing No. 470-2008-00051X
DECISION
Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405, the Commission accepts complainant's
appeal from the agency's December 22, 2008 final order concerning
his equal employment opportunity (EEO) complaint claiming 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.
Complainant alleged that the agency discriminated against him on the bases
of race/color (white) and in reprisal for prior EEO activity when:
on March 27, 2005, the agency abolished his position of Emergency
Preparedness Officer (EPO) and assigned him to Correctional Services
Officer.
The record reflects that on December 2, 2005, an EEOC Administrative Judge
certified a class complaint filed on behalf of Bureau of Prison employees
nationwide (EEOC Hearing Nos. 320-2005-00046X and 320-2005-00333X).
Subsequently, the agency determined that it should discontinue the
processing of Agency Complaint No. P-2005-0247 and issued a decision
notifying complainant that he could challenge the determination
on appeal. The record reflects that complainant filed an appeal.
The record further reflects that on July 19, 2007, the Commission
issued a decision reversing the Administrative Judge's conclusion and
denying certification of the class complaint. See Dennis Turner et al
v. Department of Justice, EEOC Appeal No. 0720060041 (June 19, 2007).
In its decision, the Commission concluded that the common questions of
fact among the potential class members did not exist. The Commission
reversed the agency's decision to discontinue processing of Agency
Complaint No. P-2005-0247. On remand, the agency was directed to
resume processing of Agency Complaint No. P-2005-0247 from the point
where processing ceased. Hall v. Department of Justice, EEOC Appeal
No. 0120062032 (July 27, 2007).
The record reflects the agency resumed processing of Agency Complaint
No. P-2005-0247 from the point where processing ceased which is the
subject of the instant appeal.
Following the investigation into his formal complaint, complainant
requested a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). Following
the November 19, 2008 telephonic hearing in regard to the agency's Motion
For Decision Without a Hearing, the AJ issued a bench decision by summary
judgment in favor of the agency. The agency fully implemented the AJ's
decision in its final order.
The AJ found that complainant did not establish a prima facie case of
race/color and reprisal discrimination. The AJ further found even if
complainant established a prima facie case of race/color and reprisal
discrimination, the agency articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory
reasons for its actions which complainant failed to show were a pretext
for discrimination. Specifically, the AJ found that complainant's EPO
position was eliminated like four other named employees' positions at
the agency's Federal Medical Center in Lexington, Kentucky, pursuant to
the nationwide mission-critical initiative, which was a cost-savings
strategy implemented in response to the agency's constrained fiscal
calendar year 2005 budget.
Regarding complainant's assertion that the Associate Warden's statements
such as "cleaning the house" and "eliminating the old boy network" were
direct evidence of discrimination against him, the AJ found that the
alleged statements were not direct evidence of discrimination because
they were not "directly specifically and solely to the complainant."
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, summary judgment
is not appropriate. In the context of an administrative proceeding,
an AJ may properly consider summary judgment only upon a determination
that the record has been adequately developed for summary disposition.
Complainant has offered no persuasive arguments on appeal regarding the
AJ's decision to issue a decision without a hearing, or regarding the
AJ's findings on the merits. Therefore, 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 unlawful
discrimination occurred.
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 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 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
July 14, 2009
__________________
Date
2
0120091410
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
4
0120091410
5
0120091410