Shelia D.,1 Complainant,v.Dr. Mark T. Esper, Secretary, Department of the Army, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Sep 20, 2018

0120172872 (E.E.O.C. Sep. 20, 2018)

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

Shelia D.,1
Complainant,

v.

Dr. Mark T. Esper,
Secretary,
Department of the Army,
Agency.

Appeal No. 0120172872

Hearing No. 420-2015-00023X

Agency No. ARREDSTON13AUG02957

DECISION

Complainant filed a timely appeal, pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.403, from the Agency’s July 26,
2017, final order concerning an equal employment opportunity (EEO) complaint alleging
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.

At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant was employed by the Agency as
a Senior Program Analyst at the Agency’s Redstone Arsenal in Alabama.

On August 2, 2014, Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging discrimination by the Agency
in retaliation for prior protected activity when:

1. on September 11, 2013, the U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command located
at Redstone notified Complainant that it was working a criminal fraud case based
on information provided by multiple employees at Headquarters, Army Materiel
Command;
2. on September 9, 2013, Complainant’s new supervisor notified Complainant that
AMC Command Counsel had requested a new telework agreement, although

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.
0120172872

2
Complainant was placed on telework as a reasonable accommodation and her
diagnosis had not changed;
3. on September 3, 2013, Complainant's teammates were informed that they were no
longer to support Complainant and were to inform her to contact her new supervisor
if Complainant needed anything from them;
4. on approximately August 28 or 29, 2013, a person contacted Complainant's
supervisor questioning Complainant's physician's note of August 23, 2013,
authorizing Complainant an additional 30 days and to schedule a meeting about
"the pitfalls and issues of supervising an employee with reasonable
accommodation;”
5. on August 22, 2013, Complainant was informed that the Agency had made the
decision to realign Complainant on July 29, 2013;
6. during an investigation held on August 21, 2013, the Agency was represented by a
person with a conflict of interest, even after it was made aware of the conflict of
interest by Complainant on August 6, 2013;
7. on August 21, 2013, Complainant was threatened relative to her HMIP payment;
and
8. on November 18, 2013, the Agency's Inspector General issued findings against
Complainant on matters that management had on, November 16, 2012, determined
were not substantiated.
After its investigation into the complaint, the Agency provided Complainant with a copy of the
report of investigation and notice of right to request a hearing before an Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) Administrative Judge (AJ). Complainant timely
requested a hearing. The Agency submitted a motion for a decision without a hearing. The AJ
subsequently issued a decision by summary judgment in favor of the Agency.

The Agency issued its final order adopting the AJ’s finding that Complainant failed to prove
discrimination as alleged. The instant appeal followed.
The Commission's regulations allow an AJ to grant summary judgment when he or she finds that
there is no genuine issue of material fact. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.109(g). 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. In
rendering this appellate decision we must scrutinize the AJ’s legal and factual conclusions, and
the Agency’s final order adopting them, de novo. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.405(a)(stating that a
“decision on an appeal from an Agency’s final action shall be based on a de novo review…”); see
also Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive for 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 (EEO-MD-
110), at Chap. 9, § VI.B. (as revised, August 5, 2015)(providing that an administrative judge’s
0120172872

3
determination to issue a decision without a hearing, and the decision itself, will both be reviewed
de novo).

In order to successfully oppose a decision by summary judgment, a complainant must identify,
with specificity, facts in dispute either within the record or by producing further supporting
evidence, and must further establish that such facts are material under applicable law. Such a
dispute would indicate that a hearing is necessary to produce evidence to support a finding that the
agency was motivated by discriminatory animus. Here, however, Complainant has failed to
establish such a dispute. Even construing any inferences raised by the undisputed facts in favor of
Complainant, a reasonable fact-finder could not find in Complainant’s favor.

Upon careful review of the AJ’s decision and the evidence of record, as well as the parties’
arguments on appeal, we conclude that the AJ correctly determined that the preponderance of the
evidence did not establish that Complainant was discriminated against by the Agency as alleged.

Accordingly, we AFFIRM the Agency’s final order adopting the AJ’s 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.
0120172872

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

September 20, 2018
Date