0120120090
10-10-2014
Complainant, v. Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General, Department of Justice (Federal Bureau of Prisons), Agency.
Complainant,
v.
Eric H. Holder, Jr.,
Attorney General,
Department of Justice
(Federal Bureau of Prisons),
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120120090
Hearing No. 532-2010-00076X
Agency No. P20090648
DECISION
Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405, the Commission accepts Complainant's appeal from the Agency's August 29, 2011 final order concerning her 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.
In a formal complaint dated February 2, 2009, and amended on August 20, 2009, Complainant alleged the Agency subjected her to discrimination on the bases of race (Caucasian), sex (female), color (married to a dark-skin Hispanic male), and age (42), when between December 1997 and January 2007, management denied her requests for reassignment to the same institutions as her spouse, a member of the Executive staff at those institutions. Additionally, Complainant alleged that she was subjected to discriminatory harassment and a hostile work environment based on her race, color, sex, and age (44) when: on March 17, 2009 she was given a lowered quarterly performance log entry; in relation to her duty requirements and when her supervisor directed her to follow the chain of command. Finally, Complainant alleged she was subjected to discriminatory harassment and a hostile work environment in reprisal for prior EEO activity when her supervisor told her that her scheduled rotation to a new duty post would be delayed unless she completed certain work items.
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 (contesting) party must be believed at the summary judgment stage and all justifiable inferences must be drawn in this 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. Dep't of Def., EEOC Appeal No. 01A24206 (July 11, 2003). Finally, an AJ should not rule in favor of one party (or use his or her discretion to issue a decision without a hearing) 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).
After a review of the record, we find that there are no genuine issues of material fact or any credibility issues which required a hearing and therefore the AJ's issuance of a decision without a hearing was appropriate. The record has been adequately developed, Complainant was given notice of the AJ's intent to issue a decision without a hearing, she was given a comprehensive statement of undisputed facts, she was given an opportunity to respond to the AJ's intent to issue a decision without a hearing and statement of undisputed facts, and she had the opportunity to engage in discovery. Under these circumstances, we find that the AJ's decision without a hearing was appropriate.
Assuming, arguendo, that Complainant established a prima facie case of discrimination on the bases of race, sex, color, age, and reprisal, the AJ concluded that she has not shown that the Agency's reasons for the actions were pretextual. Specifically, the AJ held that the Agency articulated legitimate business reasons for each of the actions it took, which Complainant alleged were discriminatory. The AJ found that the record shows that Complainant never formally requested reassignment, or applied for a vacant position through merit promotion procedure. Additionally, the record confirms the Agency's policy of prohibiting employment of spouses of executive staff at the same institutions, unless a waiver is granted. The AJ held that in instances where Complainant cited spouses being allowed to work together, the reassigned employee was not similarly situated to her. With respect to Complainant's allegation regarding her quarterly evaluation, the record reflects that Complainant was given an "exceeds" rating on her quarterly evaluation, but that her supervisor noted in a log entry concerns regarding Complainant's communication skills. The record reflects that Complainant's allegation that she was advised that her rotation would be delayed until she finished other work related items involved nothing more than a routine directive given to all employees. Complainant's rotation, however, was in no way delayed. There is no evidence that either of these matters were based on discriminatory animus.
The Commission notes that it has long held that an 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 Dep't of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 259; Vanek v. Dep't of the Treasury, EEOC Request No. 05940906 (January 16, 1997).
Complainant failed to present any evidence to demonstrate that the decisions of the Agency were motivated by race, color, gender, age, or in reprisal for prior EEO activity. With respect to Complainant's hostile work environment claim, we find that under the standards set forth in Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 510 U.S. 17 (1993) that Complainant's claim of hostile work environment must fail. See Enforcement Guidance on Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., EEOC Notice No. 915.002 (Mar. 8, 1994). A finding of a hostile work environment is precluded by our determination that Complainant failed to establish that any of the actions taken by the Agency were motivated by discriminatory animus. See Oakley v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Appeal No. 01982923 (Sept. 21, 2000).
After a review of the record in its entirety, including consideration of all statements submitted on appeal, it is the decision of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to AFFIRM the Agency's final order, because the Administrative Judge's issuance of a decision without a hearing was appropriate and a preponderance of the record evidence does not establish that discrimination occurred.
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
__10/10/14________________
Date
2
0120120090
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
2
0120120090