Taylor G.,1 Complainant,v.Ryan D. McCarthy, Secretary, Department of the Army, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Jan 30, 2020

2019000956 (E.E.O.C. Jan. 30, 2020)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of Federal Operations P.O. Box 77960 Washington, DC 20013 Taylor G.,1 Complainant, v. Ryan D. McCarthy, Secretary, Department of the Army, Agency. Appeal No. 2019000956 Hearing No. 410-2016-00261X Agency No. ARSTEWART15APR01261 DECISION Complainant filed a timely appeal, pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.403(a), from the Agency’s October 4, 2018 final action concerning an 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. During the period at issue, Complainant was employed by the Agency as an Information Technology (IT) Specialist, GS-2210-09, at the Agency’s Control, Communication, and Computers Telecommunications Division in Ft. Stewart/Hunter Air Force Base (AFB), Georgia. On June 13, 2015, Complainant filed the instant formal complaint. Complainant claimed that the Agency discriminated against him in reprisal for prior EEO activity when: 1. beginning on or about November 19, 2014 and continuing to present, the Supervisory IT Specialist subjected him to harassment about his alleged failure to notify him about work place/work related issues by instructing him not to contact more senior leaders without first addressing Complainant’s concerns with him; 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. 2019000956 2 2. in April 2015, he learned he was not selected for the position of Information IT Specialist, GS-2210-11, advertised under Vacancy Announcement Number SCDN14356200-1246924; and 3. on or about June 10, 2015 and continuing to present, the Supervisory IT Specialist subjected him to reprisal based on the current EEO activity when he harassed him about the use of leave and the information he provided on the leave request form, by denying leave and by requiring Complainant to provide more detailed information than was required in the past. 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 AJ notified the parties sua sponte of an intent to issue a decision without a hearing. The AJ subsequently issued a decision by summary judgment in favor of the Agency. Specifically, the AJ noted that in or about January 2013, Complainant filed a formal EEO complaint which was resolved by a negotiated settlement agreement. On November 19, 2014, Complainant received an “Initial Counseling” memorandum that, among things, directed him to attempt to resolve any “issues” or “grievances” with the Supervisory IT Specialist, also Complainant’s first-level supervisor, before going outside his chain of command. The AJ further noted that in April 2015, Complainant learned that he was not selected for the position of IT position, GS-2210-11. Complainant and the selectee were the only applicants who were interviewed for the subject position. The interview panel concluded that the selectee’s qualifications and interview performance surpassed those of Complainant. A review of the interview panel members’ score sheets indicated Complainant received an overall score of 237 while the selectee received an overall score of 249 for resume review and interviews. The AJ noted that on or about June 10, 2015, Complainant submitted a leave request to handle “personal affairs” at approximately 10:30 a.m. for leave he proposed to take beginning 12:00 p.m.. However, the Chief denied his leave request and asked him to provide more detailed information regarding his request. Complainant complained about the leave denial to the Captain who then approved his request. According to the Supervisory IT Specialist, he denied Complainant’s leave request the day before and instructed him to provide the reason and purpose of his leave that he was requesting and get it pre-approved. The next day, Complainant submitted “unscheduled leave, unscheduled annual leave within hours” without details the Supervisory IT Specialist denied his leave request. The Agency issued its final action adopting the AJ’s finding that Complainant failed to prove discrimination as alleged. The instant appeal followed. 2019000956 3 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 determination to issue a decision without a hearing, and the decision itself, will both be reviewed de novo). 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. We AFFIRM the Agency’s final action adopting the AJ’s decision finding no discrimination, without a hearing. 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. 2019000956 4 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. 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. 2019000956 5 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 January 30, 2020 Date