0120072066
07-26-2007
Vijay K. Sharma, Complainant, v. Mike Johanns, Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Agency.
Vijay K. Sharma,
Complainant,
v.
Mike Johanns,
Secretary,
Department of Agriculture,
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120072066
Hearing No. 470-2006-00137X
Agency No. ARS200602010
DECISION
On March 21, 2007, complainant filed an appeal from the agency's February
22, 2007, 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., and 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). For the following reasons,
the Commission AFFIRMS the agency's final order.
BACKGROUND
On or about September 25 2005, complainant applied for a Microbiologist
position with the Waste Management and Forage Research Unit of the
Agricultural Research Service (ARS) in Mississippi State, Mississippi.
Complainant was found to have met the basic requirements for the
position and was placed on the certificate of eligible candidates.
On October 21, 2005, two selecting officials reviewed the eligible
candidates' application packets and selected the three most qualified
candidates for interviews. Complainant was not selected for an interview.
On March 14, 2006, complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging that he
was discriminated against on the bases of race (Asian), national origin
(India), and age (D.O.B. 06/17/51) when, on or about February 15, 2006,
he was not selected for the position of Microbiologist at the ARS Waste
Management and Forage Research Unit.1
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 complainant's objections, the AJ assigned
to the case granted the agency's December 13, 2006 motion for a
decision without a hearing and issued a decision without a hearing on
January 22, 2007. The AJ found that the agency articulated legitimate,
nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions; namely, among other reasons,
complainant's curriculum vitae did not show he had the skills required
for the position. The AJ found that complainant failed to provide
any evidence creating a material dispute as to whether the reasons
were pretextual. The AJ, therefore, found that complainant had not been
subjected to discrimination on the alleged bases. 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. On appeal,
complainant claims that he is more qualified than the selectee.
The agency asks that we affirm the final order.
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).
Next, we note that to prevail in a disparate treatment claim such as this,
complainant must satisfy the three-part evidentiary scheme fashioned
by the Supreme Court in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792
(1973). Complainant must initially establish a prima facie case by
demonstrating that he or she was subjected to an adverse employment action
under circumstances that would support an inference of discrimination.
Furnco Construction Co. v. Waters, 438 U.S. 567, 576 (1978). Proof of a
prima facie case will vary depending on the facts of the particular case.
McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 804 n. 14. The burden then shifts to
the agency to articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for
its actions. Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450
U.S. 248, 253 (1981). To ultimately prevail, complainant must prove,
by a preponderance of the evidence, that the agency's explanation is
pretextual. Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., 530 U.S. 133,
120 S.Ct. 2097 (2000); St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502,
519 (1993).
We will assume, arguendo, that complainant has established a prima facie
case of discrimination on the alleged bases. The agency has articulated
legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions. First, the agency
claims that complainant was eliminated from serious consideration as a
candidate because his curriculum vitae did not demonstrate that he had
the requisite requirements that the agency was seeking for the position.
The agency stated that complainant had been published only once in the
past 10 years and has not held any responsible research microbiologist
position long enough to establish his expertise in the scientific
community. Further, the agency claimed complainant's employment history
is replete with voids and experiences not relevant to the position.
Finally, the agency claims that complainant's employment history shows
that he has changed positions frequently over the past 20 years. One of
the six selecting officials claimed that complainant's qualifications
were so lacking in required skills, that if complainant were the only
candidate referred for consideration, the selecting official would have
returned the referral list to Human Resources without making a selection.
Complainant does not dispute the agency's assertions, rather he argues
that he is more qualified than the selectee. The agency has broad
discretion to set policies and carry out personnel decisions, and should
not be second-guessed by the reviewing authority absent evidence of
unlawful motivation. Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine,
450 U.S. 248, 259; Vanek v. Department of the Treasury, EEOC Request
No. 05940906 (January 16, 1997). Complainant may be able to establish
pretext with a showing that his qualifications were plainly superior
to those of the selectee. Wasser v. Department of Labor, EEOC Request
No. 05940058 (November 2, 1995); Bauer v. Bailar, 647 F.2d 1037, 1048
(10th Cir. 1981). Here, complainant has failed to make this showing. We,
therefore, find that complainant has failed to show, by a preponderance
of the evidence, that the agency's articulated reasons were pretextual.
CONCLUSION
After a careful review of the record, the Commission finds that the
AJ's decision without a hearing was appropriate as no genuine issue of
material fact is in dispute.2 See Petty v. Department of Defense, EEOC
Appeal No. 01A24206 (July 11, 2003). Therefore, we AFFIRM the agency's
final order.
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
July 26, 2007
__________________
Date
1 We note that on appeal, complainant named religion as an additional
basis. As this is the first time complainant has named religion as a
basis, we find that the claim of discrimination on the basis of religion
is not before the Commission.
2 In this case, we find that the record was adequately developed for
the AJ to issue a decision without a hearing.
??
??
??
??
2
0120072066
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P. O. Box 19848
Washington, D.C. 20036
6
0120072066