01A12043
03-04-2003
Teresa C. Baker v. Department of Defense
01A12043
March 4, 2003
.
Teresa C. Baker,
Complainant,
v.
Donald H. Rumsfeld,
Secretary,
Department of Defense,
(Defense Contract Management Agency)
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A12043
Agency No. XQ-980-38
DECISION
Complainant timely initiated an appeal from a final agency decision
(FAD) concerning her 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. The appeal is accepted pursuant to
29 C.F.R. � 1614.405. For the following reasons, the Commission AFFIRMS
the agency's final decision.
The record reveals that during the relevant time, complainant was employed
as a Quality Assurance Representative at the agency's Peoria, Illinois
facility. Complainant sought EEO counseling and subsequently filed a
formal complaint on August 18, 1998, alleging that she was discriminated
against on the bases of national origin (Hispanic) and sex (female) when:
(1) On October 28, 1997, complainant's first-line supervisor (S) delayed
her request for equivalency training approval for electronics courses;
On February 9, 1998, her Technical Lead (T) withdrew her name from a
substantial ISO 9000 training and sent a male co-worker to the required
training instead; and
Complainant did not receive a monetary award for the 1996-1997
performance rating period.
At the conclusion of the investigation, complainant was informed of
her right to request a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge or
alternatively, to receive a final decision by the agency.
By letter dated October 1, 1999, complainant requested a hearing before
an AJ, but subsequently withdrew her request on February 8, 2000.
On December 1, 2000, the agency issued a final decision, finding
no discrimination. Specifically, the agency determined that it
articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions that
were not persuasively rebutted by complainant as pretexts for unlawful
discrimination.
Regarding claim 1, the agency noted that complainant signed the Request
for Equivalency Training Approval forms on May 6, 1997, but the record
is unclear about when she submitted them to S. The agency found that
since the burden of production and persuasion rests upon complainant,
and there is nothing in the record establishing when S received the
forms, it could not conclude that S delayed her request for Electronics
Certification. Further, the agency concluded there was nothing in the
record to discredit S's explanation or reflect that S acted with animus
toward complainant's national origin or sex.
With respect to claim 2, the agency noted that complainant's Technical
Leader stated that somewhere in the first week of February 1998,
personnel were informed that the agency would be offering Voluntary
Separation Incentive Pay (VSIP). The Technical Leader stated that
complainant told him that she was �seriously contemplating this offer,�
but had not accepted the offer a week before the training was scheduled
to begin on February 9, 1998. The Technical Leader explained that he
then recommended that complainant be removed from the February 9, 1998
ISO 9000 class but kept on the training requirement list to attend the
next scheduled ISO 9000 class. The agency concluded that complainant
failed to present any evidence that the agency's proferred reason was
a pretext for discriminatory motives.
Finally, regarding claim 3, the agency determined that complainant did not
receive a monetary award because such awards were not granted to employees
who received �Satisfactory� performance evaluations. The agency concluded
that there was no evidence in the record that individuals who received
the same or lower performance ratings for the 1996-1997 rating period
received performance awards or that any employee under S's supervision
received a performance award for that rating period.
Although the initial inquiry of discrimination 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 a
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).
In the instant matter, the Commission finds that the agency articulated
legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions. Specifically,
regarding complainant's request for equivalency training approval, the
record reveals that complainant signed a request form on May 6, 1997,
which was signed by S on October 17, 1997. On October 28, 1997, the
agency's western district office (DCMCW) stated that it disapproved the
request because complainant's technical experience did not indicate that
she was qualified to be certified and suggested that complainant take an
advanced electronics course. S resubmitted the request with additional
information on December 1, 1997, which was again denied by the western
district office. On July 1, 1998, the agency informed complainant that
she had to prepare a DCMDW Form 072 (Substitution of Experience for
Training) to prove certification. S then transmitted a copy of the Form
072 to complainant on July 1, 1998. Complainant submitted the requisite
form on July 10, 1998, and complainant's supervisor signed it on July
13, 1998. The record indicates that the request was approved in August
or September 1998.
Upon review, we determine that the agency proffered legitimate,
nondiscriminatory reasons for its delay in granting complainant's request
for equivalency training approval. We note that complainant failed
to indicate when she gave the request form to S, although she dated
her signature on the form as May 6, 1997. Therefore, we are unable to
ascertain how long S had the request in his possession before forwarding
it to the agency on October 17, 1997. Further, we note that there is
no evidence in the record that S delayed forwarding her request because
of discriminatory animus or motive. In fact, the record reveals that S
encouraged her to request equivalency training approval and argued on her
behalf when she was initially disapproved by the agency. Consequently, we
find that complainant failed to meet her burden of persuasively rebutting
the agency's legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions.
Regarding the agency's withdrawal of complainant's name from an
ISO 9000 training course, we note that complainant contends that she
merely asked questions of her Technical Lead about the VSIP offer,
whereas the Technical Lead contends complainant told him that she was
seriously contemplating this offer. Nevertheless, we are persuaded that
the Technical Lead reasonably felt that there was uncertainty about
complainant's future employment with the agency because of the VSIP
offer that warranted her removal from the immediate training class and
scheduling her for the next ISO 1900 class after the VSIP deadline had
passed. Further, complainant submitted no evidence which would indicate
that the Technical Leader's actions were motived by discriminatory animus.
Finally, regarding the agency's failure to give complainant a monetary
award for the 1996-1997 performance rating period, the record suggests
that the agency did not act with discriminatory motive. The record
reveals that complainant received a �Fully Successful� performance
evaluation for the 1996-1997 rating period. The agency contends that
employees who received a satisfactory rating were not automatically
granted a monetary award. Moreover, the record indicates that no
employees under S received a monetary award for the 1996-1997 rating
period. Although complainant contends in her affidavit that monetary
awards were given to �individuals who were well liked,� there is no
evidence in the record that the agency acted with discriminatory motive
against her national origin or sex.
Based on the foregoing reasons, the Commission finds that complainant
failed to establish, in all three claims, that the agency's stated
reasons constituted an effort to mask discriminatory animus.
Therefore, after a careful review of the record, including complainant's
contentions on appeal, the agency's response thereto, and arguments and
evidence not specifically addressed in this decision, we hereby AFFIRM
the final agency decision.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0701)
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 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 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 (S0900)
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
__March 4, 2003________________
Date