01A24061_r
11-19-2002
Willie D. Ransom, Complainant, v. Donald H. Rumsfeld, Secretary, Department of Defense, (Defense Logistics Agency) Agency.
Willie D. Ransom v. Department of Defense
01A24061
November 19, 2002
.
Willie D. Ransom,
Complainant,
v.
Donald H. Rumsfeld,
Secretary,
Department of Defense,
(Defense Logistics Agency)
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A24061
Agency No. GA-02-002
DECISION
Complainant filed an EEO complaint in which he claimed that the agency
discriminated against him on the bases of his race (Black) and age (54)
when he was not selected for the position of Quality Assurance Specialist
(Aircraft), GS-1910-12, in the Defense Supply Center's Directorate of
Product Development, Engineering Division, in Richmond, Virginia.
The record reveals that complainant has been employed by the agency
as a Quality Assurance Specialist, GS-1910-11, since March 1998.
Complainant was one of eleven candidates that were referred for
consideration and interviewed with regard to the relevant position.
All of the candidates were over the age of 40. Complainant was the only
Black candidate referred for consideration.
The EEO complaint was accepted for investigation. Subsequent to the
completion of the agency investigation, complainant requested that the
agency issue a final decision. The agency issued a final order dated
June 13, 2002, finding that no discrimination occurred. The agency
determined that complainant set forth a prima facie case of race and age
discrimination. The agency determined that it articulated legitimate,
nondiscriminatory reasons for its selection decision. The agency noted
that the selecting official stated that she chose the selectee because he
had participated in an audit of a contractor's quality assurance system;
he had experience teaching others about quality assurance functions; he
had completed all of his quality assurance specialty certifications for
Systems, Mechanical, Aircraft and Aerospace; was certified DAWIA Level
II, and had completed course work for DAWIA Level III; he had experience
using some of the aviation weapons systems equipment that DSCR procures;
he had quality assurance experience at DSCR dating back to 1991; and he
provided the most comprehensive answers to the interview questions as
he demonstrated an understanding of the technical and quality assurance
skills and requirements and an understanding of what training would
be important for the trainees. The agency determined that complainant
failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that a discriminatory
motive motivated the selecting official or that her articulated reasons
are unworthy of credence. The agency noted that the selecting official
stated that complainant's responses were not comparable to those of the
selectee in that he failed to address PQDR processes, procedures and
related issues. The agency also rejected complainant's argument that
the selecting official failed to ask him three of the five questions that
she stated she asked each candidate. The agency noted that the selecting
official made notes of complainant's answers to the questions at issue.
On appeal, complainant contends that the selecting official did not
ask the same questions of him that she asked of the other candidates.
Complainant states that he has completed all the required specialty
certification and DAWIA course work for the quality assurance career
field. Complainant argues that the number of years in an occupation and
skills should not be a primary selection criteria if you are doing the
same thing every three years. According to complainant, a Black female
was promoted during the period of the investigation and she was returned
to her original position after the investigation was completed.
In response, the agency asserts that although education and DAWIA
course work were factors considered by the selecting official, her
primary criteria for the selection were experience in the specific
quality assurance functions being trained and an understanding of the
training required. The agency states that in any event the selectee
has taken all of the Level III classes but complainant has taken only
one Level III course. The agency notes that the selectee has been a
Quality Assurance Specialist since 1991 and complainant has been a Quality
Assurance Specialist since 1998. The agency asserts that complainant's
disagreement with the selecting official's determination of appropriate
selection factors does not establish that the selecting official's
articulation of those factors is a pretext for illegal discrimination.
A claim of disparate treatment is examined under the three-part analysis
first enunciated in McDonnell Douglas Corporation v. Green, 411 U.S. 792
(1973). For complainant to prevail, he 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 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 (2000). Although McDonnell Douglas is a
Title VII case, its analysis is also applicable to disparate treatment
cases brought under the ADEA. See Sutton v. Atlantic Richfield Co.,
646 F.2d 407, 411 (9th Cir. 1981).
This 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. United States Postal Service Board of
Governors v. Aikens, 460 U.S. 711, 713-714 (1983); Hernandez v. Department
of Transportation, EEOC Request No. 05900150 (June 28, 1990). In this
case, the Commission finds that the agency has articulated legitimate,
nondiscriminatory reasons for its action. Consequently, we will dispense
with an examination of whether complainant established a prima facie
case with respect to the above cited issue and review below, the reasons
articulated by the agency for its action as well as complainant's effort
to prove pretext.
The selecting official stated that he chose the selectee rather than
complainant due to the selectee's advantage in experience as a Quality
Assurance Specialist, the better quality of the selectee's interview
responses, and the selectee's experience in teaching others about quality
assurance functions. The selecting official noted that the selectee's
responses to the interview questions demonstrated that he had a very
good understanding of workload management issues, technical operations,
critical items, product quality deficiency reporting processes, training,
technical documentation, customer focus, and acquisition. The selecting
official stated that complainant's responses were not comparable to those
of the selectee in that he failed to address product quality deficiency
reporting processes, procedures, and related issues. We find that the
agency has articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its
nonselection of complainant.
We find that complainant failed to refute the agency's position that
he was not as well qualified as the selectee for the relevant Quality
Assurance Specialist position. The record supports the agency's position
that the selectee had significantly more experience than complainant as a
Quality Assurance Specialist. Complainant has not refuted the selecting
official's position that the selectee's interview responses were more
comprehensive and impressive than his responses. Complainant has not
refuted the selecting official's statement that each of the candidates
was asked the same set of questions during the interview. Complainant
has not shown that his qualifications for the position at issue were
so superior to those of the selectee as to warrant a finding that the
agency's stated reasons are pretextual. See Bauer v. Bailar, 647 F.2d
1037, 1048 (10th Cir. 1981). We find that complainant has not shown,
by a preponderance of the evidence, that the agency's stated reasons
for his nonselection were pretext intended to mask discriminatory intent.
After a review of the record in its entirety, it is the decision of the
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to AFFIRM the agency's decision,
because a preponderance of the record evidence does not establish that
race or age discrimination occurred.
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
November 19, 2002
__________________
Date