Vi Odell Mays, Appellant,v.Donna A. Tanoue, Chairperson, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionJan 20, 1999
01970121 (E.E.O.C. Jan. 20, 1999)

01970121

01-20-1999

Vi Odell Mays, Appellant, v. Donna A. Tanoue, Chairperson, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Agency.


Vi Odell Mays v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

01970121

January 20, 1999

Vi Odell Mays, )

Appellant, )

) Appeal No. 01970121

v. ) Agency Nos. FDIC-95-014

) FDIC-95-027

Donna A. Tanoue, ) EEOC Nos. 310-96-5067X

Chairperson, ) 310-96-5068X

Federal Deposit Insurance )

Corporation, )

Agency. )

___________________________________)

DECISION

Appellant timely appealed the agency's final decision that it had not

discriminated against her in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights

Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. �2000e et seq. The Commission accepts

this appeal in accordance with EEOC Order No. 960.001.

Appellant filed a formal complaint of discrimination in which she alleged

discrimination on the basis of reprisal (prior EEO activity), when she:

(1) was not selected for the position of Senior Administrative Assistant,

LG-308-8, Southwest Service Center's Legal Division, posted under Vacancy

Announcement No. LD-SWSC-001; and (2) was subjected to the following acts

of harassment: (a) on January 24, 1995, the Regional Manager ordered

her to report to the Contracting Oversight Management Branch (COMB) in

downtown Dallas, Texas, instead of allowing her to remain at the North

Dallas office until the COMB was relocated there on February 27, 1995; and

(b) during the week of January 16, 1995, her immediate Supervisor relieved

her of her Administrative Assistant duties and responsibilities, denied

her the opportunity to work overtime, and to receive an incentive award,

which was given to those employees who were allowed to work overtime.

The agency accepted the complaint and conducted an investigation.

At the conclusion of the investigation, appellant requested a hearing

before an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission administrative judge

(AJ). A hearing was conducted on March 5, 1996.

On May 30, 1996, the AJ issued a recommended decision (RD) finding no

discrimination. The AJ concluded that appellant failed to establish

a prima facie case of discrimination when she was not selected for

the position. Specifically, appellant failed to prove that either the

Administrative Assistant (AA), who conducted the pre-qualification

screening, or the Administrative Officer (AO), who reviewed the

applications, conducted the interviews and made the recommendation to

the Regional Counsel, were aware of her prior EEO activity at the time

the AO made the recommendation not to select appellant. Furthermore,

the AJ found that appellant failed to establish a causal nexus between

her prior EEO activity and the decision not to select appellant for

the position. Although the evidence revealed that the AO spoke with

appellant's prior Supervisor, who was aware of appellant's EEO activity,

the AJ found no evidence to suggest that the prior Supervisor gave false

testimony in an effort to retaliate against appellant.

The AJ also found that appellant failed to establish a prima facie case of

reprisal discrimination with respect to the Regional Manager's decision

to have appellant report to the COMB office, in that she failed to show

the required causal nexus between her prior EEO activity and the action

at issue. Although the Regional Manager was aware of appellant's prior

EEO activity, there was no evidence that he harbored any ill feelings

towards appellant based on her prior EEO activity. With respect to

appellant's allegation regarding the reassignment of her duties, and the

denial of overtime and the incentive award, the AJ found that appellant

had failed to establish a prima facie case in that she failed to show

the required causal nexus between the actions and her prior EEO activity.

The AJ found that the agency had articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory

reasons for its actions. Specifically, both the AA and the AO testified

that appellant was not recommended for the position because of negative

comments she made about her Supervisor during the interview, which they

testified were inappropriate given the interview setting. Furthermore,

the AO testified that she did not believe appellant would "fit in"

with the group she would be working with. This belief was confirmed by

appellant's prior Supervisor, who testified appellant was not a "team"

worker. After hearing the recommendations from the AA and the AO,

the Regional Counsel decided not to fill the position at that time.

With respect to the decision to have appellant report to the downtown

Dallas office, the record revealed that in 1994, the agency underwent

a reorganization due to downsizing. Pursuant to a union/management

agreement, appellant was offered, and accepted, a position in COMB,

where she was supposed to report on January 23, 1995. Prior to her

reporting date, appellant told the Regional Manager that the commute

was going to create a hardship on her. The Regional Manager testified

that when informed of her commuting problems, he attempted to resolve

the situation by offering appellant a Secretarial position in the North

Dallas office. Appellant refused the position and reported to the COMB

position on January 24, 1995. She was later offered, and accepted a

position in the North Dallas location, effective February 27, 1995. Thus,

appellant commuted to the downtown office for approximately one month.

With respect to her remaining allegations, appellant's Supervisor

testified that appellant's duties were removed about a week before she

was reassigned. The Supervisor testified that she needed to work the

other employees into appellant's position in order to ensure a smooth

transition. With respect to the overtime assignment, the Supervisor

testified that she asked employees to work overtime on January 28, 1995.

Since appellant was no longer assigned to the personnel unit, she was

unable to work the overtime. The Supervisor also testified that she

did not know at the time she requested the overtime that she would award

the incentive award.

The AJ noted that based on the consistency of their testimony, as well

as their demeanor at the hearing, the Supervisor, AA, AO, and Regional

Manager, were all credible witnesses. In sum, the AJ found that in light

of appellant's failure to establish a prima facie case on any allegation,

as well as the agency's articulation of legitimate, nondiscriminatory

reasons, she concluded that appellant was not discriminated against,

as alleged.

On August 23, 1996, the agency issued a final decision adopting the AJ's

finding of no discrimination. It is from this decision that appellant

now appeals.

After reviewing the record, we find that the AJ's RD summarized the

relevant facts and referenced the appropriate regulations, policies,

and laws. We note that appellant failed to present evidence that

any of the agency's actions were in retaliation for her prior EEO

activity. We therefore discern no basis to disturb the AJ's finding

of no discrimination which were based on a detailed assessment of the

credibility of the witnesses. See Gaithers v. United States Postal

Service, EEOC Request No. 05890894 (November 9, 1989); Wrenn v. Gould,

808 F.2d 493, 499 (6th Cir. 1987); Anderson v. Bessemer City, 470

U.S. 564, 575 (1985). Therefore, after a careful review of the record,

including appellant's contentions on appeal and arguments and evidence

not specifically addressed in this decision, we AFFIRM the agency's

final decision.

STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL

RECONSIDERATION (M0795)

The Commission may, in its discretion, reconsider the decision in this

case if appellant or the agency submits a written request containing

arguments or evidence which tend to establish that:

1. New and material evidence is available that was not readily available

when the previous decision was issued; or

2. The previous decision involved an erroneous interpretation of law,

regulation or material fact, or misapplication of established policy; or

3. The decision is of such exceptional nature as to have substantial

precedential implications.

Requests to reconsider, with supporting arguments or evidence, MUST

BE FILED WITHIN THIRTY (30) CALENDAR DAYS of the date you receive this

decision, or WITHIN TWENTY (20) CALENDAR DAYS of the date you receive

a timely request to reconsider filed by another party. Any argument in

opposition to the request to reconsider or cross request to reconsider

MUST be submitted to the Commission and to the requesting party

WITHIN TWENTY (20) CALENDAR DAYS of the date you receive the request

to reconsider. See 29 C.F.R. �1614.407. All requests and arguments

must bear proof of postmark and 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 filed on the date it is received

by the Commission.

Failure to file within the time period will result in dismissal of your

request for reconsideration as untimely. If extenuating circumstances

have prevented the timely filing of a request for reconsideration,

a written statement setting forth the circumstances which caused the

delay and 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).

RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (S0993)

It is the position of the Commission that 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.

You should be aware, however, that courts in some jurisdictions have

interpreted the Civil Rights Act of 1991 in a manner suggesting that

a civil action must be filed WITHIN THIRTY (30) CALENDAR DAYS from the

date that you receive this decision. To ensure that your civil action

is considered timely, you are advised to file it WITHIN THIRTY (30)

CALENDAR DAYS from the date that you receive this decision or to consult

an attorney concerning the applicable time period in the jurisdiction

in which your action would be filed. 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 (Z1092)

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:

Jan 20, 1999

___________________ ____________________________

DATE Ronnie Blumenthal, Director

Office of Federal Operations