0120123213
01-24-2013
William Gray, Complainant, v. Eric K. Shinseki, Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs, Agency.
William Gray,
Complainant,
v.
Eric K. Shinseki,
Secretary,
Department of Veterans Affairs,
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120123213
Agency No. 200H629D2011104404
DECISION
On August 14, 2012, Complainant filed an appeal from the Agency's July 25, 2012, final decision 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 Commission deems the appeal timely and accepts it pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405(a).
BACKGROUND
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a Applicant for an Engineer position at the Agency's Hudson Valley Health Care System facility in Monroe, New York.
The record indicated that on August 12, 2011, Complainant contacted the Agency's EEO Office regarding the Agency's failure to hire him. On November 7, 2011, Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging that the Agency discriminated against him on the bases of race (African-American) and age (62) when:
1. On May 5, 2010, when management rated him as not qualified for the position of Electrician, WG-10, under Vacancy Announcement #OG-1-338999.
2. On August 1, 2011, Complainant became aware that his application for the position of Electrician WG-10, under vacancy announcement number 504045, was not referred to the selecting official for consideration.
The Agency dismissed claim (1) pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.107(a)(2) for untimely EEO counselor contact. The Agency determined that Complainant's contact in August 2011 was well beyond the 45 day time limit to contact the EEO Counselor from when Complainant learned he was rated not qualified in May 2010. Therefore, the Agency only accepted claim (2) for investigation.
At the conclusion of the investigation, the Agency provided Complainant with a copy of the report of investigation and notice of his right to request a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). In accordance with Complainant's request, the Agency issued a final decision pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.110(b). The decision concluded that Complainant failed to prove that the Agency subjected him to discrimination as alleged.
This appeal followed without specific comment.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
As this is an appeal from a decision issued without a hearing, pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.110(b), the Agency's decision is subject to de novo review by the Commission. 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405(a). See Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive for 29 C.F.R. Part 1614, at Chapter 9, � VI.A. (November 9, 1999) (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").
Dismissal of Claim (1)
The Agency dismissed claim (1) pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.107(a)(2). EEOC Regulation 29 C.F.R. �1614.107(a)(2) states that the agency shall dismiss a complaint or a portion of a complaint that fails to comply with the applicable time limits contained in �1614.105, �1614.106 and �1614.204(c), unless the agency extends the time limits in accordance with �1614.604(c).
EEOC Regulation 29 C.F.R. �1614.105(a)(1) provides that an aggrieved person must initiate contact with an EEO Counselor within 45 days of the date of the matter alleged to be discriminatory or, in the case of a personnel action, within 45 days of the effective date of the action. EEOC Regulation 29 C.F.R. �1614.105(a)(2) allows the agency or the Commission to extend the time limit if the complainant can establish that complainant was not aware of the time limit, that complainant did not know and reasonably should not have known that the discriminatory matter or personnel action occurred, that despite due diligence complainant was prevented by circumstances beyond his control from contacting the EEO Counselor within the time limit, or for other reasons considered sufficient by the agency or Commission.
The Agency indicated that Complainant was aware of the alleged discrimination in July 2010, but failed to pursue the matter to a formal complaint. Clearly Complainant's contact with the EEO counselor in August 2011 was well beyond 45 days from the non-selection in May 2010. Complainant has not challenged the Agency's arguments. Therefore, upon review, we find that the Agency's dismissal was appropriate.
Finding of No Discrimination in Claim (2)
A claim of disparate treatment based on indirect evidence is examined under the three-part analysis first enunciated in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). For Complainant to prevail, he or she must first establish a prima facie case of discrimination by presenting facts that, if unexplained, reasonably give rise to an inference of discrimination, i.e., that a prohibited consideration was a factor in the adverse employment action. McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 802; Furnco Construction Corp. v. Waters, 438 U.S. 567 (1978). The burden then shifts to the Agency to articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its actions. Texas Dep't. of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 253 (1981). Once the Agency has met its burden, Complainant bears the ultimate responsibility to persuade the fact finder by a preponderance of the evidence that the Agency acted on the basis of a prohibited reason. St. Mary's Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (1993).
This established order of analysis in discrimination cases, in which the first step normally consists of determining the existence of a prima facie case, need not be followed in all cases. Where the Agency has articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the personnel action at issue, the factual inquiry can proceed directly to the third step of the McDonnell Douglas analysis, the ultimate issue of whether Complainant has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the Agency's actions were motivated by discrimination. U.S. Postal Serv. Bd. of Governors v. Aikens, 460 U.S. 711, 713-714 (1983); Hernandez v. Dep't. of Transp., EEOC Request No. 05900159 (June 28, 1990); Peterson v. Dep't. of Health and Human Serv., EEOC Request No. 05900467 (June 8, 1990); Washington v. Dep't. of the Navy, EEOC Petition No. 03900056 (May 31, 1990).
Upon review of the record, we find that the Agency provided legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its decision not to hire Complainant with regard to claim (2). The record showed that there were 55 applicants for the positions. The Human Resources Specialist (Specialist) averred that there were some 31 applicants who were rated scores between 100 and 95 and ranked on the Best Qualified list. She also noted that 17 of the 31 were Veterans. As such, only the 17 Veteran applicants from the Best Qualified list were referred for selection. The Specialist indicated that Complainant rated himself with 91 points out of 100 which placed him in the Well Qualified list. As such, he was never referred. Based on the record before us, we find that the Agency has met its burden.
We turn now to whether Complainant can establish that the Agency's reasons were pretext for discrimination. We note that Complainant asserted that ""There are no African American Electricians working at this facility". However, we note that Complainant did not substantiate his assertion. Furthermore, Complainant did not contest the Agency's statement that he would have given himself a score of 91 which would have only ranked him on the Well Qualified list as opposed to the Best Qualified list. Accordingly, we conclude that Complainant has not shown that the Agency's action constituted discrimination based on race and/or age.
CONCLUSION
Based on a thorough review of the record and the contentions on appeal, including those not specifically addressed herein, we AFFIRM the Agency's final decision finding no discrimination.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0610)
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), at 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 (S0610)
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 (Z0610)
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
January 24, 2013
__________________
Date
2
0120123213
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
2
0120123213