Thomas Sullivan, Complainant,v.Mike Leavitt, Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services, (Administration for Children and Families), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionSep 17, 2007
0120072802 (E.E.O.C. Sep. 17, 2007)

0120072802

09-17-2007

Thomas Sullivan, Complainant, v. Mike Leavitt, Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services, (Administration for Children and Families), Agency.


Thomas Sullivan,

Complainant,

v.

Mike Leavitt,

Secretary,

Department of Health and Human Services,

(Administration for Children and Families),

Agency.

Appeal No. 0120072802

Hearing No. 541-2006-00148X

Agency No. ACF-002-06

DECISION

On June 2, 2007, complainant filed an appeal from the agency's April 30,

2007, final order concerning his equal employment opportunity (EEO)

complaint alleging employment discrimination in violation of the Age

Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), as amended, 29 U.S.C. �

621 et seq. The appeal is deemed timely and is accepted pursuant to 29

C.F.R. � 1614.405(a).

At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, complainant worked

as a Regional Administrator, GS-15, for Region VIII of the agency's

Administration for Children and Families (ACF) in Denver, Colorado.

On December 13, 2005, complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging that

he was discriminated against on the bases of age (D.O.B. 07/19/38) and in

reprisal for prior protected EEO activity arising under the ADEA when:

1. Starting on May 24, 2005, he had been the subject of an internal

investigation based on "An Anonymous Hot Line Complaint" which did not

occur;

2. Starting on May 24, 2005, he had been accused of the misuse or abuse

of government travel;

3. Starting on May 24, 2005, he had been subjected to verbal harassment

and a hostile work environment by management which included the submission

of detailed reports on his travel; restriction of management authority

and reluctance to accept his accomplishments;

4. On September 21, 2005, he was ordered to remove 36.75 hours of

compensatory time from his time records; and,

5. On September 22, 2005, he received a Memorandum of Caution.

At the conclusion of the investigation, complainant was provided with a

copy of the report of investigation and notice of his right to request

a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). Complainant timely

requested a hearing. On March 2, 2007, the agency submitted a motion

for a decision without a hearing. Complainant submitted his objections

to the agency's motion on April 3, 2007. The AJ assigned to the case

granted the agency's motion and issued a decision without a hearing on

April 10, 2007. The agency subsequently issued a final order adopting

the AJ's finding that complainant failed to prove that he was subjected

to discrimination as alleged.

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 EEOC Management Directive 110, Chapter 9,

� VI.B. (November 9, 1999). (providing that an administrative judge's

"decision to issue a decision without a hearing pursuant to [29 C.F.R. �

1614.109(g)] will be reviewed de novo"). This essentially means that we

should look at this case with fresh eyes. In other words, we are free

to accept (if accurate) or reject (if erroneous) the AJ's, and agency's,

factual conclusions and legal analysis - including on the ultimate fact

of whether intentional discrimination occurred, and on the legal issue

of whether any federal employment discrimination statute was violated.

See id. at Chapter 9, � VI.A. (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").

Based on our thorough de novo review of the record, and the arguments

submitted by the parties on appeal, we find that no reasonable fact

finder could find in complainant's favor, as he has not set forth

sufficient facts that would establish that the agency's actions were taken

because of his age, or in reprisal for his opposition to discriminatory

comments or for EEO activity in which he engaged. We conclude that

the issuance of a decision without a hearing was therefore appropriate.

The AJ's ultimate conclusion that complainant has not shown that he

was discriminated against based on his age or in reprisal for prior

protected EEO activity, and the agency's implementation of that decision,

was correct, and we AFFIRM the agency's finding of no discrimination.

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

9-17-07

__________________

Date

2

0120072802

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

Office of Federal Operations

P. O. Box 19848

Washington, D.C. 20036

4

0120072802