01a02577
08-29-2000
Stephen A. Thompson, Complainant, v. Craven H. Crowell, Jr., Chairman, Tennessee Valley Authority, Agency.
Stephen A. Thompson v. Tennessee Valley Authority
01A02577
August 29, 2000
.
Stephen A. Thompson,
Complainant,
v.
Craven H. Crowell, Jr.,
Chairman,
Tennessee Valley Authority,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A02577
Agency No. 0312-99013
Hearing No. 130-99-8288X
DECISION
Complainant timely initiated an appeal from the agency's final action
concerning his equal employment opportunity (EEO) 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 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659 (1999)(to
be codified at 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405). Complainant alleges that he was
discriminated against on the bases of race (African American) and reprisal
(prior EEO activity) when:
(1) he was not selected for a Customer Service Coordinator position,
PG 6/7, on or about December 16, 1998; and
he was not selected for a Field Supervisor position, PG 7, on or about
December 16, 1998.
For the following reasons, the Commission AFFIRMS the agency's final
action.
BACKGROUND
The record reveals that complainant, a steamfitter and welder at the
agency's Power Services Shop in Muscle Shoals, Alabama, applied for and
met the minimum qualifications for both the Customer Service Coordinator
position and the Field Supervisor position. Despite his qualifications,
complainant was not selected for either position.
For the Customer Service Coordinator position, there were twenty-five
applicants. Of the twenty-five applicants, twenty applicants were
qualified, including complainant. From the twenty qualified applicants,
eleven applicants were offered positions, including one other African
American applicant. For the Field Supervisor position, complainant was
among thirteen applicants, two of whom are African Americans. Two white
applicants were selected for the positions.
Complainant filed his instant formal EEO complaint on March 12,
1999, and at the conclusion of the investigation, received a copy
of the investigative report and requested a hearing before an EEOC
Administrative Judge (AJ). The AJ issued a decision without a hearing,
finding no discrimination.
The AJ concluded that complainant established a prima facie case of race
and reprisal discrimination. The AJ then concluded that the agency
articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions.
The AJ found that complainant failed to present any evidence that the
proffered reasons were pretexts for discrimination. The agency's final
action implemented the AJ's decision. From this final action complainant
now appeals.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
The Commission reviews de novo an AJ's decision to issue a decision
without a hearing pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.109(g). See, EEOC MD-110,
at 9-16. Although the initial inquiry in a discrimination case usually
focuses on whether the complainant has established a prima facie case,
following this order of analysis is unnecessary when the agency has
articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its actions. See
Washington v. Department of the Navy, EEOC Petition No. 03900056 (May 31,
1990). In such cases, the inquiry shifts from whether the complainant
has established a prima facie case to whether he has demonstrated by
preponderance of the evidence that the agency's reasons for its actions
merely were a pretext for discrimination. Id.; see also United States
Postal Service Board of Governors v. Aikens, 460 U.S. 711, 714-717
(1983).
For both the Customer Services Coordinator position and the Field
Supervisor position, the selection process was the same. A four member
review team interviewed the candidates for the positions. The panel
asked each candidate the same questions. Individual panel members rated
the candidates on the basis of their responses and other qualifications.
From the individual ratings, each candidate was given a panel rating.
As for the Customer Services Coordinator position, complainant was ranked
seventeenth and the top eleven were offered positions. As for the Field
Supervisor position, complainant ranked tenth of eleven applicants.
Only the top two applicants were offered a position.
The record establishes that the interview panels did not select
complainant because he was not the best qualified for the positions.
Specifically, the selectees were rated as having responded better to
interview questions. The selectees also rated higher in the categories
of communication skills, knowledge of specific fossil and hydro power
plant systems, and supervising a workforce.
Complainant alleges that the overwhelming number of managers are
white males who award temporary or �acting� managerial assignments
to other white males. According to complainant, experience as an
acting manager bolsters these workers' qualifications for promotion,
thereby creating little opportunity for promotion of African Americans
to management positions. Notwithstanding complainant's assertion that
he was denied opportunity to supervise, complainant does not rebut the
agency's assertion that the selectee's performed better in the areas of
communication skills and knowledge of specific fossil and hydro power
plant systems. Therefore,
complainant has failed to establish that these specific non-selections
were motivated by discriminatory or retaliatory animus. We affirm the
final agency action.
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:
______________________________
Carlton M. Hadden, Director
Office of Federal Operations
August 29, 2000
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 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.