0120064730
02-10-2009
Vance Gillette,
Complainant,
v.
Ken L. Salazar,
Secretary,
Department of the Interior,
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120064730
Hearing No. 100-2005-00245X
Agency No. OS04018
DECISION
On August 16, 2006, complainant filed an appeal from the agency's July
6, 2006 final order concerning his 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. The appeal is deemed timely and is accepted pursuant
to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405(a). For the following reasons, the Commission
AFFIRMS the agency's final order.
BACKGROUND
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, complainant was an
applicant for employment with the agency's Office of Hearings and Appeals,
in Arlington, Virginia.
The record reveals that complainant worked as an Attorney Advisor for
the agency from March 11, 2002 until December, 2002 in the Office of
Trust Services in South Dakota. During his time there, complainant
complained to management about allegedly racist remarks made by an
Administrative Law Judge. Complainant alleges that the Director of
Trust Services (D1) sent him an e-mail asking complainant to stop
complaining about the remarks. On December 2, 2002, complainant was
discharged by D1 during his probationary period. In 2003, complainant
filed an administrative complaint with the Office of Special Counsel.
In February 2003, the agency and complainant settled the complaint and
complainant was permitted to resign in lieu of his termination.
Complainant thereafter applied for the positions of Chief Administrative
Law Judge and Administrative Law Judge. There were three individuals
who rated and ranked the applicants. One of the raters was D1. D1 has
since resigned from federal service. Complainant's ratings were below
the cut-off scores for referral to the selecting official, and he was
therefore not selected for either position.
On or about June 8, 2004, complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging
that he was discriminated against on the bases of race (Native American)
and reprisal for prior protected EEO activity when:
1. in May 2004, he learned that he was not selected for the position
of Chief Administrative Judge, under Vacancy Announcement No, OS-03-022;
and
2. in May 2004, he learned he was not selected for the position of
Administrative Judge, under Vacancy Announcement No. OS-03-023.
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. Over the complainant's objections, the AJ assigned
to the case granted the agency's December 14, 2005 motion for a decision
without a hearing and issued a decision without a hearing.
In his decision, the AJ found complainant failed to establish a prima
facie case of race discrimination because the agency referred other
Native American candidates to the selecting official. Furthermore,
the AJ found complainant failed to establish a prima facie case of
reprisal because he failed to establish that D1 used any knowledge of
complainant's prior EEO activity during the selection process.
Assuming, arguendo, that complainant established a prima facie case,
the AJ found the agency followed its guidelines for selection, and
members of the panel indicated that complainant was not chosen due to his
communication skills, as they were expressed in his application materials.
The AJ determined that the low scores were issued to complainant because
of his application, and not because of his race of prior EEO activity.
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.
CONTENTIONS ON APPEAL
Complainant contends that he produced enough information to raise
an inference of retaliation, and that the higher scores awarded by
another rater should be evidence that he was retaliated against by D1.
Furthermore, complainant reiterates that he was discriminated against
because of his race.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
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").
We must first determine whether it was appropriate for the AJ to have
issued a decision without a hearing on this record. The Commission's
regulations allow an AJ to issue a decision without a hearing when
he or she finds that there is no genuine issue of material fact.
29 C.F.R. � 1614.109(g). This regulation is patterned after the summary
judgment procedure set forth in Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that summary judgment
is appropriate where a court determines that, given the substantive
legal and evidentiary standards that apply to the case, there exists
no genuine issue of material fact. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,
477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986). In ruling on a motion for summary judgment,
a court's function is not to weigh the evidence but rather to determine
whether there are genuine issues for trial. Id. at 249. The evidence of
the non-moving party must be believed at the summary judgment stage and
all justifiable inferences must be drawn in the non-moving party's favor.
Id. at 255. 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.
If a case can only be resolved by weighing conflicting evidence, issuing
a decision without holding a hearing is not appropriate. In the context
of an administrative proceeding, an AJ may properly consider issuing a
decision without holding a hearing only upon a determination that the
record has been adequately developed for summary disposition. See Petty
v. Department of Defense, EEOC Appeal No. 01A24206 (July 11, 2003).
Finally, an AJ should not rule in favor of one party without holding
a hearing unless he or she ensures that the party opposing the ruling
is given (1) ample notice of the proposal to issue a decision without
a hearing, (2) a comprehensive statement of the allegedly undisputed
material facts, (3) the opportunity to respond to such a statement, and
(4) the chance to engage in discovery before responding, if necessary.
According to the Supreme Court, Rule 56 itself precludes summary
judgment "where the [party opposing summary judgment] has not had the
opportunity to discover information that is essential to his opposition."
Anderson, 477 U.S. at 250. In the hearing context, this means that the
administrative judge must enable the parties to engage in the amount
of discovery necessary to properly respond to any motion for a decision
without a hearing. Cf. 29 C.F.R. � 1614.109(g)(2) (suggesting that an
administrative judge could order discovery, if necessary, after receiving
an opposition to a motion for a decision without a hearing).
The agency maintains that for both positions, complainant's rating score
was not high enough to merit the referral of his name to the selection
official. D1 averred that he rated complainant lower because complainant
did not articulate or demonstrate his abilities to perform the duties
of the position clearly, and his writing was in need of refinement.
Complainant's main pretext argument surrounds D1's participation in the
selection process.
Assuming complainant established a prima facie case of race and
retaliation for both nonselections, we find that the AJ was correct
in issuing a decision without a hearing as no dispute of material fact
exists. The record supports the statements of the raters, and complainant
failed to present sufficient evidence that would show he was "observably
superior" to the selectees. Bauer v. Bailar, 647 F.2d 1037, 1048 (10th
Cir. 1981). Furthermore, although D1 was aware of complainant's prior
EEO activity, complainant failed to dispute the testimonial evidence
that the other two raters were unaware of complainant's prior EEO
activity, thereby supporting the agency's position that D1 did not
disclose his knowledge of complainant's prior EEO activity, and the
selection guidelines were followed. Although D1's scores were lower
for complainant than the other raters, varying scores was present for
several other candidates as well. Furthermore, complainant failed to
present any other evidence of a discriminatory or retaliatory motive.
CONCLUSION
We AFFIRM the agency's final action finding no discrimination.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M1208)
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 77960,
Washington, DC 20013. 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 (S0408)
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 (Z1008)
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 from the Court that
the Court appoint an attorney to represent you and that the Court also
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 with
the Court 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
February 10, 2009
Date
2
0120064730
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
6
0120064730
7
0120064730