0120121230
12-05-2012
Shannon Morris, Complainant, v. John M. McHugh, Secretary, Department of the Army, Agency.
Shannon Morris,
Complainant,
v.
John M. McHugh,
Secretary,
Department of the Army,
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120121230
Hearing No. 420-2011-00060X
Agency No. ARANAD09OCT04627
DECISION
Complainant appeals to the Commission from the Agency's final decision dated September 9, 2011, finding no discrimination. For the following reasons, we AFFIRM the Agency's final decision.
BACKGROUND
In his complaint, dated November 25, 2009, Complainant alleged discrimination based on race (Black) when on September 29, 2009, he became aware that he had not been selected for the position of Welder, WG-3703-10, under Vacancy Announcement Number SCAH08159370D. After completion of the investigation of the complaint, Complainant requested a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). However, the AJ denied Complainant's request because he failed to comply with the AJ's Acknowledgement and Order by not submitting any of the information described therein. Thus, the AJ remanded the case back to the Agency for a final Agency decision. The Agency then issued its final Agency decision concluding that it asserted legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its action, which Complainant failed to rebut. On appeal, Complainant does not dispute the AJ's denial of a hearing.
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. (November 9, 1999) (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").
After a review of the record, assuming arguendo that Complainant had established a prima facie case of discrimination, we find that the Agency has articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for the alleged nonselection. The record indicates that at the time of the relevant incident, Complainant was a term employee, Welder, WG-3703-10, in the Agency's Vehicle Welding Branch, Tracked Systems Division, Anniston Army Depot, Anniston, Alabama. Complainant claimed that he applied but was not selected for the full-time, permanent position of Welder, WG-3703-10, under Vacancy Announcement Number SCAH08159370D on September 29, 2009. The Agency stated that after a review of resumes, candidates, who received the cutoff score of 98, were referred for consideration to be selected for the position at issue. Then, the Agency utilized its established selection process of the "Rule of Three,"1 along with computing candidates' scores based on their work experience, interview, and supervisor's questionnaires. Based on this selection process, 24 candidates were ultimately selected for the position at issue and Complainant was not.
The Selecting Official for the position at issue stated that management announced the vacancies internally and externally. All term employees, including Complainant, competed externally for the Welder positions at issue. The Agency ultimately did not use the internal list for the selections. The Selecting Official indicated that Complainant was not referred on the external referral list; thus, he was not selected for the position at issue.
Complainant claimed that he applied for the position at issue both internally and externally through the automated application system, but he received a message that he did not meet the qualification requirements. Complainant indicated that when he became aware that he was not included on either list, he sent, electronically, his resume to the Civilian Personnel Operations Center (CPOC). The CPOC then referred him for consideration only on the internal referral list, and not the external list. The Agency stated that there was no evidence in the record to show that Complainant pursued any action to have his name added to the external referral list at that time. On appeal, Complainant does not contest this.
After a review of the record, we find that Complainant failed to show that he was treated less favorably than a similarly situated employee under similar circumstances. Furthermore, there is no evidence that the Agency's utilization of the external referral list and/or Complainant's name not being included on that list was due to his race. Thus, we find that Complainant has failed to show that the Agency's action was motivated by discrimination as he alleged.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the Agency's final decision is AFFIRMED.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0610)
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), at 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 (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 (Z0610)
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
12/5/12
__________________
Date
1 The Agency stated that the "Rule of Three" ensured that the applicants with the highest scores were selected, rather than applicants being selected because they know someone. The Agency noted that this "Rule of Three" was strictly followed throughout the selection process and the selection was made from the top three names on a certified list of candidates. Complainant does not contest this process.
---------------
------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
------------------------------------------------------------
2
0120120254
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013