01a54302
10-19-2005
Zafor Ullah, Complainant, v. Gale A. Norton, Secretary, Department of the Interior, Agency.
Zafor Ullah v. Department of Interior
01A54302
October 19, 2005
.
Zafor Ullah,
Complainant,
v.
Gale A. Norton,
Secretary,
Department of the Interior,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A54302
Agency No. FWS-04-015
DECISION
Complainant timely initiated an appeal from an agency decision concerning
his complaint of unlawful 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. For the following reasons, the Commission
AFFIRM the agency's final decision.
The record reveals that during the relevant time, complainant was employed
as Law Enforcement Park Ranger at the agency's Fish and Wildlife Service
facility. Complainant sought EEO counseling and subsequently filed a
complaint on April 21, 2004, alleging that he was discriminated against
on the bases of race (Asian), national origin (Hispanic), religion
(Muslim), and reprisal for prior EEO activity when he was terminated
from his temporary position as a Law Enforcement Park Ranger.
At the conclusion of the investigation, complainant was informed of
his right to request a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge
or alternatively, to receive a final decision by the agency. When
complainant failed to respond within the time period specified in 29
C.F.R. � 1614.108(f), the agency issued a final decision.
In its final decision the agency concluded that complainant failed to
establish a prima facie case of race, national origin or religious
discrimination. Specifically, the agency found that complainant
failed to submit evidence to show that he was treated differently than
similarly situated employees outside his protected class. The agency
also concluded that complainant failed to establish a prima facie case of
reprisal discrimination because he did not allege any prior EEO activity.
The agency also found that complainant failed to present evidence that
more likely than not, the agency's articulated reasons for its actions
were a pretext for discrimination.
We find that the agency has articulated a legitimate nondiscriminatory
reason for the termination. Specifically, the Deputy Refuge Manager
(Deputy) states that complainant was hired as a temporary employee who
may be terminated at any time. According to the Deputy, there were two
permanent Law Enforcement Park Rangers, and every year the agency hires a
temporary Law Enforcement Park Ranger to assist during the hunting season.
Once the hunting season ends the temporary Law Enforcement Park Ranger
is terminated. The Deputy stated that with the exception of the previous
year, temporary Law Enforcement Park Rangers were always relieved of
their duties once the hunting season ended. According to complainant,
the two permanent Law Enforcement Officers were scheduled to vacate their
positions in early 2004, and therefore, his temporary employment could
have been extended. Complainant argues that his temporary employment was
terminated because he refused to write a justification statement to hire
two additional Law Enforcement Officers and because he objected to the
Deputy's involvement in a criminal investigation. The Deputy states that
she did not ask complainant to submit a justification statement to hire
additional Law Enforcement Officers and that she was not aware of his
objection to her participation in a criminal investigation. Even assuming
that complainant's termination was a result of the aforementioned reasons,
we find that these reasons are unrelated to complainant's race, national
origin, religion or prior protected activity.
Complainant has failed to show that the agency's reasons are pretext
for discrimination. Complainant has not rebutted the agency's argument
that its actions were without discriminatory motive. We find that
complainant has failed to show, by a preponderance of the evidence,
that he was discriminated against on the bases of race, national origin,
religion or reprisal.
Accordingly, the agency's final decision finding no discrimination
is AFFIRMED.
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
October 19, 2005
__________________
Date