Milton e Williams Complainant V John M Mchugh Secretary Department of The Army A

{\rtf1 \ansi
{\colortbl;
\red0\green0\blue0;
\red255\green255\blue255;
}
{\fonttbl {
\f0 Arial;}{
\f1 Symbol;}{
\f2 Times New Roman;}{
\f3 georgia;}{
\f4 sans-serif;}{
\f5 serif;}
}
{\*\generator Apache XML Graphics RTF Library;}
\fet0 \ftnbj \paperw12240 \paperh15840 \margt1080 \margb1080 \margl1080
\margr1080 \headery720 \footery720 \itap0 \cols1
\sectd {\header {
{\trowd \ltrrow \trleft0
\clpadb60 \clpadfb3 \clpadl400 \clpadfl3 \clbrdrt \clbrdrb \brdrw20 \brdrcf17
\brdrs \clbrdrl \trql \clvertalb \clwWidth9380 \cellx9380
\clpadb60 \clpadfb3 \clpadl400 \clpadfl3 \clbrdrt \clbrdrb \brdrw20 \brdrcf17
\brdrs \clbrdrr \trql \clwWidth700 \cellx10080
\intbl
{\li0 \f0 \b0 \ql \ri0 \fs18 \cf1 \i0
{\f0 \strike0 \ul0 \b0 \fs18 \cf1 \i0
}
{\f0 \b1 \fs18 \cf18 \i0
{\f0 \strike0 \ul0 \b1 \sa0 \sb0 \fs18 \cf18 \i0
MILTON E. WILLIAMS, COMPLAINANT, v. JOHN M...., EEOC DOC...
}
}
}
}\f0 \li0 \strike0 \ul0 \b0 \sa0 \ql \sb0 \fs18 \ri0 \cf1 \i0 \intbl \cell \intbl
{\li0 \f0 \b0 \ri0 \fs18 \cf1 \qr \i0
}\f0 \li0 \b0 \fs18 \ri0 \cf1 \i0 \qr \intbl \cell \row }
{\trowd \lastrow \trleft0
\clbrdrb \clbrdrl \trql \clwWidth10080 \cellx10080
\intbl
{\li0 \f0 \b0 \ql \ri0 \fs18 \cf1 \i0
}\f0 \li0 \b0 \ql \fs18 \ri0 \cf1 \i0 \intbl \cell \row }}\par }{\footer {
\clpadl60 \clpadfl3 \clbrdrt \brdrw20 \brdrcf17 \brdrs \clbrdrb \clbrdrl \trql
\clvertalb \clwWidth9300 \cellx9300
\clpadl60 \clpadfl3 \clbrdrt \brdrw20 \brdrcf17 \brdrs \clbrdrb \clbrdrr \trql
\clwWidth700 \cellx10000
\intbl
{\li0 \f0 \b0 \ql \ri0 \fs20 \cf17 \i0
}
{\*\shppict {\pict \pngblip \picw78 \pich10 \picwgoal1170 \pichgoal150
89504e470d0a1a0a0000000d494844520000004e0000000a08030000002dbd985500000300504c5445f
ffffff8a969f6913ff68931fff9f5f69241f5852af68d38fcddc4f58326fac294f8a868fac193fcdabe
fab985fcdfc7fef5eef58022f8a35efef6effde5d2fac092fffaf6f9ac6ffffcfafde8d7fef7f1f9b27
9f6862cf8aa6af79e56f79c53f58327fef1e7fde3cefeeee2f9b076f79a4efef8f4f58123f58224f9ae
72feefe4f58021f9ae71fac295fffaf7fcdabffef7f2f9af73f9b177f8ac6ef9b47cf8a15bf6872ef79
648fef5edf9b278fcd9bdf9b782f9b57efbc89ffde3cffffefdf6872df8aa6bfcd6b8fac59af9b781fa
bc8bfffbf8fac091fac396fbceaaf8a461f68e39f6882ffabe8dfabf8ff9b884f79c52fdeadbfeede0f
68c36f89f58fcdcc3fde0c9fef0e5fef3eaf68f3cfbcaa2f8a867f9b37afaba87f68b35fde7d6fabf90
fffcfbfaba86fde7d5f6903efffdfcfef4ecf68f3bfde1cafcdfc6fbd1affbcea9fcd6b7f68a33f7944
4fbcba5f58429fcdec6f9af74f8a25df58428f7a461fef4edfdede0fde6d4fde7d4f9b680fbc69cfbc8
a0f9b37bfac9a1f69240f79d54fcd4b4f9b883f68e3afef8f3fdebddfde2cbf7984cf8a35ff6882efef
3ebf9bd8cfcd4b5feecdef8a562fde6d3fef9f4fcdbc1f9bc8afcd8bcf8ab6dfef8f2fcd7b9fffbf7fe
efe3f79546f8aa69f79f57fde1cbfcd3b3fcd2b1f8a25cfcd3b2fde2ccfac599fac397f9b379fcd8bbf
bd2b0fef2e9fcd5b6fac79ef8a664f8a460f68a32fac090fffbf9fef2e8f8ab6cfde4d0f7994df6903d
f79749fffefcf79e55f8a766f8a059f68830f7974afde2cdfbcca6fabd8cf57f2000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000000000000007df8d2030000000174524e530040e6d86600000009
7048597300000b1300000b1301009a9c18000002814944415478da636680023eb5570ce186e2a55b85b
5f54d94595f337247083ee592d448fdcda26527d272e93da364d58d865d10c58b1f7a9d67708e7cf976
82a87fe1ca5469f97b50539860c62dfb67c1f029a9f211c3d7ae33bff2ffb03046ae53e3dac4106b76e
2b9c17235a9598c8caa5f179f80a80d94eeb9c9c0a0ef22c1a09de8f891e168e14d98292c3046e2ca55
271e247d9cc1a0cae067ca607583618efd56be2f0f7318b4b215661d7efa9289e1d07b67a8e3f8e3384
d84dfaa30c830f4de7f64c0f09841fe11ba71210c9f18945efc3fc3d0d5744389618d0483e77cb587bb
27763ebb96cdc0f0e6a6fb1f0686fb309b972c5d9dea9ad4fd428381e7bbc84986bf0cd761a630c318f
7150ffeee3fd478f6cb0ce15bd767fff9f1e3b2d0e36a4ff1d97a1f8006b1fe7af31d6875d4ca9f20a5
39792fdb7f9dbffd4131e6c16f3981f7e12f9f5dfcc7800e84cc6dd80c380a7c657818fa39f33475c49
73130f0aa30ed2be9616010601602aae0dac70f56e9b24f3fa84f41912189792fe7c234366b5646064c
e0acee309ba18c9d992d8c41649f3b4c542c67df0e84714ae0f099b98f8d4d7b5f36833e27f36603860
033f57c060ccf3230be9d767ff7d115e98bdf7ee60a65c8bd2eae7fb7dc7ff757a5b65d1f193836f01d
077a396aaec04f95b7ba519fde581d7ffef3da1fdbe9c18f199ecd5977e90ba671c59c6699bf187e5aa
c7ac7b09cbd63d64b9f131cbb2523c3b8eec51d60889bc37803e8c650f725ffdeb1ff09c9397de1d7c7
4ec9dd550276eb1916720b3c7a8969dcbee0e9124f182c7a7ffd62f8bfebdb4b869b759f0a369e8dde9
b92cbc070d1e21d3029fcbb76f0298383ef8997a0e427be85e3eae7d99f6f3004aff2ef861b0200a155
f504c5b3927b0000000049454e44ae426082}}
\u169\'3f 2017 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
}
}\f0 \li0 \strike0 \ul0 \b0 \sa0 \ql \sb0 \fs20 \ri0 \cf17 \i0 \intbl \cell \intbl
{\li0 \f0 \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf17 \qr \i0
{\b0 \i0 \ul0 \fs20 \f0 \chpgn }
}\f0 \li0 \strike0 \ul0 \b0 \fs20 \ri0 \cf17 \i0 \qr \intbl \cell \row }}\par }
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \par}\sect\sbknone\pgncont\cols1{\ids0 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_document_1}{\*\bkmkend co_document_1}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart I411fd1bb779d11e0b63e897ab6fa6920_Target}{\*\bkmkend
I411fd1bb779d11e0b63e897ab6fa6920_Target}
\par
}
{\li0 \f3 \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \qc \i0
EEOC DOC 0120090596 (E.E.O.C.), 2011 WL 1690815
\par
}
}
{\li0 \f2 \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \qc \i0
{\li0 \f2 \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \qc \i0
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (E.E.O.C.)
\par
}
}
{\li0 \f2 \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \qc \i0
Office of Federal Operations
\par
}
}
{\li100 \f3 \b0 \ri100 \fs20 \cf19 \qc \i0
{\li100 \f3 \b0 \ri100 \fs20 \cf19 \qc \i0
MILTON E. WILLIAMS, COMPLAINANT,
\par
}
}
{\li100 \f3 \b0 \ri100 \fs20 \cf19 \qc \i0
v.
\par
}
}
{\li100 \f3 \b0 \ri100 \fs20 \cf19 \qc \i0
JOHN M. MCHUGH, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, AGENCY.
\par
}
}
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \qc \i0
Appeal No.
\par
}
{\li200 \f3 \b1 \cfpat21 \ri0 \fs20 \shading10000 \cf19 \qc \i0
0120090596
\par
}
}
}
{\li0 \f2 \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \qc \i0
Hearing No. 430-2007-00311X
\par
}
}
{\li0 \f2 \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \qc \i0
Agency No. ARBRAGG06SEP03782
\par
}
}
}
{\f3 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f3 \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \qc \i0
April 29, 2011
\par
}
}
}
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\u160\'3f
\par
}
{\li0 \f2 \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \qc \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
DECISION
\par
}
}
}
\u160\'3f
\par
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_pp_sp_999_1_1}{\*\bkmkend co_pp_sp_999_1_1}
*1
}
}
On November 13, 2007, Complainant timely filed an appeal from the Agency\rquote s
October 9, 2008, 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,
}
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?
findType=L&pubNum=1000546&cite=42USCAS2000E&originatingDoc=I411fd1bb779d11e0b63e897
ab6fa6920&refType=LQ&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=D
ocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt
42 U.S.C. \u167\'3f 2000e et seq.,
}}}
and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), as amended,
}
findType=L&pubNum=1000546&cite=29USCAS621&originatingDoc=I411fd1bb779d11e0b63e897ab
6fa6920&refType=LQ&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=Doc
umentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt
29 U.S.C. \u167\'3f 621 et seq.
}}}
The Commission accepts the appeal pursuant to
}
findType=L&pubNum=1000547&cite=29CFRS1614.405&originatingDoc=I411fd1bb779d11e0b63e8
97ab6fa6920&refType=RB&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType
=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_8b3b0000958a4" }{\fldrslt
29 C.F.R. \u167\'3f 1614.405(a)
}}}
. For the following reasons, the Commission MODIFIES the Agency\rquote s final
order.
\par
}
}
}
\u160\'3f\u160\'3f
\par
}
{\li0 \f2 \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \qc \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
ISSUES PRESENTED
\par
}
}
}
\u160\'3f
\par
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
1. Whether substantial evidence supports the EEOC Administrative Judge\rquote s
(AJ) conclusion that Complainant was not subjected to unlawful discrimination when
it failed to select him for a GS-11 Supervisory Air Traffic Control Specialist
position and issued him an overall performance evaluation of 3/Successful.
\par
}
}
}
{\li200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
2. Whether the AJ erred as a matter of law when she found that a manager\rquote s
statement that filing an EEO complaint would not be in Complainant\rquote s best
interest was not a violation of EEO regulations.
\par
}
}
}
}
\u160\'3f\u160\'3f
\par
}
{\li0 \f2 \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \qc \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
BACKGROUND
\par
}
}
}
\u160\'3f
\par
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a GS-10
Air Traffic Controller at the Agency\rquote s Range Control Division in Fort Bragg,
North Carolina.
\par
}
}
}
\u160\'3f
\par
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
On December 6, 2006, Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging that the Agency
discriminated against him on the bases of race (African-American), age (born in
1956), and in reprisal for prior protected EEO activity under Title VII and the
ADEA when:
\par
}
}
{\li200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
1. On September 18, 2006, the Agency failed to select Complainant for the position
of Supervisory Air Traffic Control Specialist; and
\par
}
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
2. On December 4, 2006, Complainant received an overall performance evaluation
of \u8220\'3f3\u8221\'3f or \u8220\'3fSuccessful.\u8221\'3f
\par
}
}
}
}
}
\u160\'3f
\par
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
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 AJ. Complainant timely requested a hearing, and the AJ held a hearing on January
14, 2008, January 29, 2008, and March 5, 2008.
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs16 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_footnoteReference_FN_F1_ID0ELCAC_1}{\*\bkmkend
co_footnoteReference_FN_F1_ID0ELCAC_1}
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "#co_footnote_FN_F1_1" }{\fldrslt
{\super \f2 \strike0 \ul0 \b0 \sa0 \sb0 \fs16 \cf5 \i0
1
}}}
}
On September 26, 2008, the AJ issued a decision in which she found that the Agency
had not subjected Complainant to unlawful discrimination or reprisal. Specifically,
the AJ found that the Agency provided non-discriminatory reasons for
Complainant\rquote s non-selection and performance evaluation, and Complainant
failed to prove that the explanations were pretext for unlawful discrimination. The
AJ further found that a manager\rquote s comment that filing an EEO complaint would
not be in Complainant\rquote s best interest was \u8220\'3fhighly
inappropriate\u8221\'3f and could have had a chilling effect on Complainant\rquote
s rights to pursue the EEO process, but this comment did not have such a chilling
effect on Complainant because he sought EEO counseling, filed a complaint, and
\u8220\'3fadamantly continued\u8221\'3f in the EEO process. AJ\rquote s Decision,
p. 8. The Agency subsequently issued a final order fully adopting the AJ\rquote s
findings.
\par
}
}
}
\u160\'3f\u160\'3f
\par
}
{\li0 \f2 \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \qc \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
CONTENTIONS ON APPEAL
\par
}
}
}
\u160\'3f
\par
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
*2
}
}
Complainant did not make any arguments on appeal, and the Agency requests that we
affirm its final order.
\par
}
}
}
\u160\'3f\u160\'3f
\par
}
{\li0 \f2 \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \qc \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
STANDARD OF REVIEW
\par
}
}
}
\u160\'3f
\par
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Pursuant to
}
29 C.F.R. \u167\'3f 1614.405(a)
}}}
, all post-hearing factual findings by an AJ will be upheld if supported by
substantial evidence in the record.
}
Substantial evidence is defined as \u8220\'3fsuch relevant evidence as a reasonable
mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.\u8221\'3f
}
findType=Y&serNum=1951120165&pubNum=780&originatingDoc=I411fd1bb779d11e0b63e897ab6f
a6920&refType=RP&fi=co_pp_sp_780_477&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&
transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_780_477" }{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
Universal Camera Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board
}
}
, 340 U.S. 474, 477 (1951)
}}}
(citation omitted). A finding regarding whether or not discriminatory intent
existed is a factual finding.
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
See
}
}
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
Pullman-Standard Co. v. Swint
}
}
, 456 U.S. 273, 293 (1982)
}}}
. An AJ\rquote s conclusions of law are subject to a de novo standard of review,
whether or not a hearing was held.
\par
}
}
}
\u160\'3f\u160\'3f
\par
}
{\li0 \f2 \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \qc \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
\par
}
}
}
\u160\'3f\u160\'3f
\par
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Non-Selection and Performance Evaluation
\par
}
}
}
\u160\'3f
\par
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Generally, claims of disparate treatment are examined under the tripartite analysis
first enunciated in
}
a6920&refType=RP&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=Docum
entItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
McDonnell Douglas Corporation v. Green
}
}
, 411 U.S. 792 (1973)
}}}
.
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
Hochstadt v. Worcester Foundation for Experimental Biology. Inc
}
}
., 425 F. Supp. 318, 324 (D. Mass.)
}}}
, aff\rquote d,
}
545 F.2d 222 (1st Cir. 1976)
}}}
. 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.
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
McDonnell Douglas
}
}
, 411 U.S. at 802;
}}}
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
Furnco Construction Corp. v. Waters
}
}
, 438 U.S. 567, 576 (1978)
}}}
;
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc.
}
}
, 530 U.S. 133, 142 (2000)
}}}
(applying the analytical framework described in
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
McDonnell Douglas
}
}
to an ADEA disparate treatment claim).
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs16 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_footnoteReference_FN_F2_ID0EKJAC_1}{\*\bkmkend
co_footnoteReference_FN_F2_ID0EKJAC_1}
2
}}}
}
For instance, to establish a prima facie case of reprisal, Complainant must show
that (1) he engaged in protected EEO activity; (2) the Agency was aware of the
protected activity; (3) subsequently, he was subjected to adverse treatment by the
Agency; and (4) a nexus exists between his protected activity and the adverse
treatment.
}
findType=Y&serNum=2000702791&pubNum=4031&originatingDoc=I411fd1bb779d11e0b63e897ab6
fa6920&refType=PD&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=Docu
mentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
Whitmire v. Dep\rquote t of the Air Force
}
}
, EEOC Appeal No. 01A00340 (September 25, 2000)
}}}
.
\par
}
}
}
\u160\'3f
\par
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Once complainant has established a prima facie case, the burden of production then
shifts to the Agency to articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its
actions.
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
Texas Dep\rquote t of Community Affairs v. Burdine
}
}
, 450 U.S. 248, 253 (1981)
}}}
. If the Agency is successful, the burden reverts back to Complainant to
demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the Agency\rquote s reason(s)
for its action was a pretext for discrimination. At all times, Complainant retains
the burden of persuasion, and it is his obligation to show by a preponderance of
the evidence that the Agency acted on the basis of a prohibited reason.
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
St. Mary\rquote s Honor Center v. Hicks
}
}
, 509 U.S. 502, 519 (1993)
}}}
;
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
U.S. Postal Service Board of Governors v. Aikens
}
}
, 460 U.S. 711, 715-16 (1983)
}}}
.
\par
}
}
}
\u160\'3f
\par
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
*3
}
}
In this case, we assume for purposes of analysis that Complainant established a
prima facie case of discrimination on the basis of race, age, and reprisal.
Nonetheless, we find that the Agency provided legitimate, non-discriminatory
reasons for its actions. Specifically, Complainant\rquote s second-level supervisor
(S2) testified that he made the selection for the Supervisory Air Traffic
Controller Specialist position based on interviews with the candidates, the
candidates\rquote resumes, and his personal observations of the candidates in the
workplace. Hearing Transcript (HT), pp. 292, 293, 344. S2 testified that out of the
same 15 questions asked of the candidates, Complainant \u8220\'3fmissed\u8221\'3f
six and a half of the questions, whereas the selectee only missed three questions.
HT, p. 302.
\par
}
}
}
\u160\'3f
\par
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
S2 further testified that Complainant answered questions in a slow and rambling
manner, whereas the selectee answered the questions in a direct manner.
}
HT, p. 301. He further stated that he also did not select Complainant because he
observed incidents wherein Complainant failed to report a hung jumper dummy
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs16 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_footnoteReference_FN_F3_ID0E6MAC_1}{\*\bkmkend
co_footnoteReference_FN_F3_ID0E6MAC_1}
3
}}}
}
that was caught outside an aircraft, responded with a \u8220\'3fblank
stare\u8221\'3f to a gas leak that required an evacuation of facilities, and did
not know the location of his assigned air traffic. HT, pp. 304, 309, 311. S2
testified that based on his observations, he could not put Complainant in a
supervisory position wherein he would make life and death decisions. HT, p. 330. S2
testified that he observed the selectee (Caucasian, 42 years old) smoothly handle
an inflight emergency and never had to counsel him for poor performance. HT, pp.
312, 317, 318.
\par
}
}
}
\u160\'3f
\par
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
S2 testified that he was the senior rater for Complainant\rquote s performance
evaluation, but SI actually rated Complainant. HT, p. 312. S2 testified that he
thought that Complainant should have received a lower rating than
\u8220\'3f3,\u8221\'3f but he affirmed S1\rquote s rating because Complainant was
successful but not outstanding in his performance. HT, pp. 325, 326. However, S2
testified that he gave Complainant and all other controllers an award because he
believed that Air Traffic Controllers were underpaid. HT, p. 375.
\par
}
}
}
\u160\'3f
\par
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Complainant\rquote s former first-level supervisor/shift supervisor (SI) testified
that he evaluated Complainant as a \u8220\'3f3\u8221\'3f for
\u8220\'3fSuccessful\u8221\'3f because he thought that Complainant was a
\u8220\'3fweak controller.\u8221\'3f HT, p. 414. S1 testified that although
Complainant did a good job with administrative duties, he had difficulty making
decisions quickly. HT, p. 415. He further testified that he observed Complainant
inappropriately approve a C-17 aircraft to enter airspace that had people jumping
through the same airspace sector. HT, p. 417.
\par
}
}
}
\u160\'3f
\par
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Complainant testified that he should have been selected for the position because he
had more Air Controller experience than the selectee, more experience at Fort Bragg
than the selectee, and had served as Controller in Charge more times than the
selectee. HT, p. 614. However, the record reveals that the selectee had worked at
Fort Bragg since 2002, served as an Air Traffic Controller since 1987, and served
as a shift supervisor. Exhibit F-9, pp. 146-150. Additionally, from 1995 to 1998,
the selectee served as an Air Traffic Controller at Fort Campbell, Kentucky, a
facility that Complainant acknowledged was comparable to Fort Bragg. HT, p. 591. We
do not find that there is any persuasive evidence that Complainant\rquote s
qualifications were plainly superior to the selectee\rquote s qualifications.
Regarding the performance rating, Complainant testified that he did not think his
performance evaluation was fair because S1 had only been his supervisor for six
months at the time he issued the rating. HT, p. 135. However, Complainant failed to
prove that S1\rquote s observations during the six month period were based upon
discriminatory animus. Further, Complainant acknowledged that he made a mistake
when he tore up the wrong flight strip. HT, pp. 107, 108. Thus, we conclude that
Complainant failed to prove that the Agency\rquote s non-discriminatory
explanations for its actions were pretext for unlawful discrimination.
\par
}
}
}
\u160\'3f
\par
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
*4
}
}
Consequently, we find that the record contains substantial evidence that supports
the AJ\rquote s determination that Complainant failed to prove that was he was
subjected to unlawful discrimination when the Agency failed to select him for a
Supervisory Air Control Specialist position and rated him
\u8220\'3fSuccessful.\u8221\'3f
\par
}
}
}
\u160\'3f\u160\'3f
\par
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
Interference with the EEO Process
\par
}
}
}
\u160\'3f
\par
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
An employee may suffer unlawful retaliation if his supervisor interferes with his
EEO activity.
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
See
}
}
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
Binseel v. Dep\rquote t of the Army, EEOC Request No. 05970584 (Oct. 8, 1998)
}
}}}
;
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
see also
}
}
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Marr v. Dep\rquote t of the Air Force
}
}
, EEOC Appeal No. 01941344 (June 27, 1996);
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Whidbee v. Dep\rquote t of the Navy
}
}
, EEOC Appeal No. 0120040193 (Mar. 31, 2005).
\par
}
}
}
\u160\'3f
\par
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
In this case, S2 testified that he told Complainant that it would not be in
Complainant\rquote s best interest to file an EEO complaint. HT, p. 328. S2 further
testified the following:
\par
}
}
{\li200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Well I asked [Complainant], I said [Complainant], I understand you are going to
file an EEO complaint. And I said, well, I don\rquote t think it would be in your
best interest. I\rquote m not trying to discourage him, I\rquote m telling him that
he\rquote s got to work with these guys on the floor .... Co-workers have come to
me and said, \u8220\'3f1 don\rquote t want to work with the guy.\u8221\'3f I
don\rquote t trust him. There\rquote s a division in that control room right now.
How to cure it, I don\rquote t know. I even brought that up to [Complainant] last
week, and his response was, \u8220\'3fwell, when this is all settled, done, and
over with, you\rquote ll see it wasn\rquote t about what you think it is,
[S2].\u8221\'3f He said we can bring this to an end, and I said it\rquote s not
\u8220\'3fwe.\u8221\'3f I wasn\rquote t the one that created the racial strife in
there, [Complainant] himself has. HT, pp. 328, 329.
\par
}
}
}
}
}
\u160\'3f
\par
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Upon review of this matter, we find that S2\rquote s acknowledged actions violated
the letter and spirit of EEO regulations and constitute an impermissible
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
per se
}
}
interference with the EEO process. By approaching Complainant and stating that he
did not think it would be in Complainant\rquote s best interest to file an EEO
complaint, S2 improperly injected himself into the EEO process. Moreover, we
construe S2\rquote s comments as a flagrant attempt to dissuade Complainant from
engaging in the EEO process by suggesting or threatening that he could suffer
unpleasant consequences if he pursued his EEO claims. Furthermore, S2 compounded
his interference with Complainant\rquote s EEO activity by telling Complainant that
his EEO activity impaired his relationship with co-workers, was divisive, and
created racial strife in the workplace.
\par
}
}
}
\u160\'3f
\par
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Contrary to the AJ\rquote s finding, it does not matter that Complainant continued
to pursue his EEO claims despite S2\rquote s interference. The Commission has found
that even if a complainant successfully initiates the EEO process in spite of such
interference, the complainant is still aggrieved.
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
Boyd v. Dep\rquote t of Transportation
}
}
, EEOC Appeal No. 01955276 (Oct. 10, 1997)
}}}
(\u8220\'3f[t]he mere fact that the appellant filed the instant formal complaint
does not defeat her claim of unlawful interference with the EEO process.\u8221\'3f)
We find that S2\rquote s comments clearly are reasonably likely to deter employees
from engaging in EEO activity, and as such, violate EEO regulations.
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
See
}
}
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
Kirk E. Webster v. Dep\rquote t of Defense
}
}
, EEOC Appeal No. 0120080665 (Nov. 4, 2009)
}}}
(comments made by complainant\rquote s supervisor that the EEO complaints
complainant filed stressed him out and that in his 20 years at the agency no one
had done anything like what complainant had done to him constituted a
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i1
per se
}
}
violation of Title VII since such comments are likely to have a chilling effect
and deter employees from full exercise of their EEO rights).
\par
}
}
}
\u160\'3f\u160\'3f
\par
}
{\li0 \f2 \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \qc \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
CONCLUSION
\par
}
}
}
\u160\'3f
\par
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
*5
}
}
Based on a thorough review of the record and the contentions on appeal, including
those not specifically addressed herein, we AFFIRM the Agency\rquote s final order
with respect to the non-selection and performance evaluation claims. The Commission
REVERSES the final order with respect to Complainant\rquote s claim that S2
interfered with the EEO process because we find that S2\rquote s actions violated
EEO regulations.
}
In order to remedy this violation, we REMAND this matter to the Agency so that it
can take actions specified in the following Order of the Commission.
\par
}
}
}
\u160\'3f\u160\'3f
\par
}
{\li0 \f2 \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \qc \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
ORDER
\par
}
}
}
\u160\'3f
\par
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
The Agency is ORDERED to undertake the following remedial actions:
\par
}
}
{\li200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
1. The Agency shall provide at least eight (8) hours of EEO training to all
managers at its Fort Bragg, North Carolina facility. The training shall place
special emphasis on the Agency\rquote s obligation to prevent retaliation and
interference with the EEO process. The Commission does not consider training to be
a disciplinary action.
\par
}
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
2. The Agency shall consider taking disciplinary action against the responsible
supervisor (S2). The Agency shall report its decision within thirty (30) calendar
days. If the Agency decides to take disciplinary action, it shall identify the
actions taken. If the Agency decides not to take disciplinary action, it shall set
forth the reason(s) with specificity for its decision not to impose discipline.
\par
}
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
3. The Agency shall undertake a supplemental investigation to determine
Complainant\rquote s entitlement to compensatory damages under Title VII. The
Agency shall give complainant notice of his right to submit objective evidence
(pursuant to the guidance given in
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0
Carle v. Dep\rquote t of the Navy
}
}
, EEOC Appeal No. 01922369 (Jan. 5, 1993)
}}}
and request objective evidence from complainant in support of his request for
compensatory damages within forty-five (45) calendar days of the date Complainant
receives the agency\rquote s notice. No later than ninety (90) calendar days after
the date that this decision becomes final, the Agency shall issue a final agency
decision addressing the issue of compensatory damages. The final decision shall
contain appeal rights to the Commission. The Agency shall submit a copy of the
final decision to the Compliance Officer at the address set forth below.
\par
}
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
4. The Agency and its management shall cease and desist from discouraging employees
from engaging in the EEO process and discussing employees\rquote EEO matters with
employees who do not have a legitimate need to know about their EEO activity.
\par
}
}
}
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
5. The Agency shall post the attached notice, as detailed below.
\par
}
}
}
}
}
\u160\'3f
\par
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
The Agency is further directed to submit a report of compliance, as is provided in
the statement entitled \u8220\'3fImplementation of the Commission\rquote s
Decision.\u8221\'3f The report shall include supporting documentation verifying
that the corrective action listed in this order has been implemented.
\par
}
}
}
\u160\'3f\u160\'3f
\par
}
{\li0 \f2 \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \qc \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
ATTORNEY\rquote S FEES
}
}
(H0610)
\par
}
}
\u160\'3f
\par
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
If Complainant has been represented by an attorney (as defined by
}
=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_803d000060000" }{\fldrslt
29 C.F.R. \u167\'3f 1614.501(e)(1)(iii)
}}}
), he is entitled to an award of reasonable attorney\rquote s fees incurred in the
processing of the portion of his EEO complaint on which he prevailed.
}
=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_7fdd00001ca15" }{\fldrslt
29 C.F.R. \u167\'3f 1614.501(e)
}}}
. The award of attorney\rquote s fees shall be paid by the Agency. The attorney
shall submit a verified statement of fees to the Agency --
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
not
}
}
to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Office of Federal Operations --
within thirty (30) calendar days of this decision becoming final. The Agency shall
then process the claim for attorney\rquote s fees in accordance with
}
97ab6fa6920&refType=LQ&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType
=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt
29 C.F.R. \u167\'3f 1614.501
}}}
.
\par
}
}
}
\u160\'3f\u160\'3f
\par
}
{\li0 \f2 \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \qc \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMISSION\rquote S DECISION
}
}
(K0610)
\par
}
}
\u160\'3f
\par
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
*6
}
}
Compliance with the Commission\rquote s corrective action is mandatory. The Agency
shall submit its compliance report
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
within thirty (30) calendar days
}
}
of the completion of all ordered corrective action. The report shall be submitted
to the Compliance Officer, Office of Federal Operations, Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission, P.O. Box 77960, Washington, DC 20013. The Agency\rquote s
report must contain supporting documentation, and the Agency must send a copy of
all submissions to the Complainant.
}
If the Agency does not comply with the Commission\rquote s order, the Complainant
may petition the Commission for enforcement of the order.
}
29 C.F.R. \u167\'3f 1614.503(a)
}}}
. The Complainant also has the right to file a civil action to enforce compliance
with the Commission\rquote s order prior to or following an administrative petition
for enforcement.
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
See
}
}
}
29 C.F.R. \u167\'3f\u167\'3f 1614.407
}}}
,
}
1614.408
}}}
, and
}
=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_16f4000091d86" }{\fldrslt
29 C.F.R. \u167\'3f 1614.503(g)
}}}
. Alternatively, the Complainant has the right to file a civil action on the
underlying complaint in accordance with the paragraph below entitled
\u8220\'3fRight to File a Civil Action.\u8221\'3f
}
29 C.F.R. \u167\'3f\u167\'3f 1614.407
}}}
and
}
1614.408
}}}
. A civil action for enforcement or a civil action on the underlying complaint is
subject to the deadline stated in
}
findType=L&pubNum=1000546&cite=42USCAS2000E-
16&originatingDoc=I411fd1bb779d11e0b63e897ab6fa6920&refType=RB&originationContext=d
ocument&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp
_4b24000003ba5" }{\fldrslt
42 U.S.C. 2000e-16(c)
}}}
(1994 & Supp. IV 1999).
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
If the Complainant files a civil action, the administrative processing of the
complaint, including any petition for enforcement, will be terminated
}
}
.
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
See
}
}
}
29 C.F.R. \u167\'3f 1614.409
}}}
.
\par
}
}
}
\u160\'3f\u160\'3f
\par
}
{\li0 \f2 \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \qc \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL RECONSIDERATION
}
}
(M0610)
\par
}
}
\u160\'3f
\par
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
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.
\par
}
}
{\li200 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li400 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
1. The appellate decision involved a clearly erroneous interpretation of material
fact or law; or
\par
}
}
}
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li600 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
2. The appellate decision will have a substantial impact on the policies,
practices, or operations of the Agency.
\par
}
}
}
}
}
}
\u160\'3f
\par
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Requests to reconsider, with supporting statement or brief, must be filed with the
Office of Federal Operations (OFO)
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
within thirty (30) calendar days
}
}
of receipt of this decision or
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
within twenty (20) calendar days
}
}
of receipt of another party\rquote s timely request for reconsideration.
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
See
}
}
}
29 C.F.R. \u167\'3f 1614.405
}}}
;
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive for 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 (EEO MD-
110)
}
}
, at 9-18 (Nov. 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.
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
See
}
}
}
29 C.F.R. \u167\'3f 1614.604
}}}
. The request or opposition must also include proof of service on the other party.
\par
}
}
}
\u160\'3f
\par
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
*7
}
}
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.
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
See
}
}
}
=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_4b24000003ba5" }{\fldrslt
29 C.F.R. \u167\'3f 1614.604(c)
}}}
.
\par
}
}
}
\u160\'3f\u160\'3f
\par
}
{\li0 \f2 \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \qc \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
COMPLAINANT\rquote S RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION
}
}
(T0610)
\par
}
}
\u160\'3f
\par
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
This decision affirms the Agency\rquote s final decision/action in part, but it
also requires the Agency to continue its administrative processing of a portion of
your complaint. You have the right to file a civil action in an appropriate United
States District Court
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
within ninety (90) calendar days
}
}
from the date that you receive this decision on both that portion of your
complaint which the Commission has affirmed and that portion of the complaint which
has been remanded for continued administrative processing. In the alternative, you
may file a civil action
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
after one hundred and eighty (180) calendar days
}
}
of the date you filed your complaint with the Agency, or your appeal with the
Commission, until such time as the Agency issues its final decision on your
complaint.
}
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. \u8220\'3fAgency\u8221\'3f or
\u8220\'3fdepartment\u8221\'3f 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,
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
filing a civil action will terminate the administrative processing of your
complaint
}
}
.
\par
}
}
}
\u160\'3f\u160\'3f
\par
}
{\li0 \f2 \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \qc \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
RIGHT TO REQUEST COUNSEL
}
}
(Z0610)
\par
}
}
\u160\'3f
\par
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
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.
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
See
}
}
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended,
}
42 U.S.C. \u167\'3f 2000e et seq.
}}}
; the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended,
}
6fa6920&refType=LQ&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=Doc
umentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)" }{\fldrslt
29 U.S.C. \u167\'3f\u167\'3f 791
}}}
,
}
6fa6920&refType=RB&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=Doc
umentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_4b24000003ba5" }{\fldrslt
794(c)
}}}
.
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
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 (\u8220\'3fRight to File a
Civil Action\u8221\'3f).
\par
}
}
}
\u160\'3f
\par
}
}
{\li0 \f2 \b0 \ql \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
\u160\'3f
\par
}
{\li0 \f2 \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \qc \i0
FOR THE COMMISSION:
\par
}
}
\u160\'3f
\par
}
{\li0 \f2 \b0 \ql \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Carlton M. Hadden
\par
}
}
{\li0 \f2 \b0 \ql \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Director
\par
}
}
{\li0 \f2 \b0 \ql \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Office of Federal Operations
\par
}
}
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \qc \i0
{\li0 \f2 \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf20 \qc \i0
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf20 \i0
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
}
}
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
\par
}
}
}
{\li0 \f2 \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \qc \i0
{\li0 \f2 \b1 \ri0 \fs20 \cf20 \qc \i0
An Agency of the United States Government
\par
}
}
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
}
{\f2 \b1 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
*8
}
}
This Notice is posted pursuant to an order by the United States Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission dated ___________________ which found that a violation of
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended,
}
42 U.S.C. \u167\'3f 2000e et seq.,
}}}
has occurred at the Department of the Department of the Army\rquote s Range
Control Division in Fort Bragg, North Carolina facility (hereinafter this
facility).
\par
}
}
}
\u160\'3f
\par
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Federal law requires that there be no discrimination against any employee or
applicant for employment because of the person\rquote s RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, SEX,
NATIONAL ORIGIN, AGE, or DISABILITY with respect to hiring, firing, promotion,
compensation, or other terms, conditions or privileges of employment.
\par
}
}
}
\u160\'3f
\par
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
This facility was found to have interfered with an employee\rquote s participation
in the EEO process. This facility was ordered to provide training to management
regarding the Agency\rquote s obligation to prevent retaliation and interference
with the EEO process; consider taking disciplinary action against the responsible
management official; determine the amount of compensatory damages the employee may
be entitled to receive; pay the employee\rquote s attorneys fees and costs; and
cease and desist from discouraging employees from engaging in the EEO process and
discussing employees\rquote EEO matters with persons who do not have a legitimate
need to know about the EEO activity. This facility will ensure that officials
responsible for personnel decisions and terms and conditions of employment will
abide by the requirements of all federal equal employment opportunity laws and will
not retaliate against employees who file EEO complaints.
\par
}
}
}
\u160\'3f
\par
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
This facility will comply with federal law and will not in any manner restrain,
interfere, coerce, or retaliate against any individual who exercises his or her
right to oppose practices made unlawful by, or who participates in proceedings
pursuant to, federal equal employment opportunity law.
\par
}
}
}
\u160\'3f
\par
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
By the Agency\rquote s duly authorized representative:
\par
}
}
}
\u160\'3f
\par
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
________________________________________
\par
}
}
}
\u160\'3f
\par
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
29 C.F.R. Part 1614
\par
}
}
}
\u160\'3f
\par
}
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0 {
\clpadl200 \clpadfl3 \clbrdrt \clbrdrl \trql \clwWidth10080 \cellx10080
\intbl
{\li0 \ri0
{\li0 \f2 \b0 \ql \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
Footnotes
\par
}
}
}\f2 \li0 \strike0 \ul0 \b0 \sa0 \ql \sb0 \fs20 \ri0 \cf1 \i0 \intbl \cell \row }
\clbrdrl \trql \clvertalt \clwWidth600 \cellx600
\clbrdrr \trql \clwWidth9480 \cellx10080
\intbl
{\li0 \ri0
{\li0 \f2 \b0 \ql \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\*\bkmkstart co_footnote_FN_F1_1}{\*\bkmkend co_footnote_FN_F1_1}
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "#co_footnoteReference_FN_F1_ID0ELCAC_1" }{\fldrslt
1
}\f2 \super \strike0 \ul0 \b0 \sa0 \sb0 \fs20 \cf5 \i0 }}
\par
}
}
}\f2 \li0 \b0 \ql \fs20 \ri0 \cf1 \i0 \intbl \cell \intbl
{\li0 \ri0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs18 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs18 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs18 \cf1 \i0
We note that the AJ and parties took a tour of the Air Traffic Control facility at
issue in this case. HT, p. 332.
\par
}
}
}
}
}\f2 \li0 \strike0 \ul0 \b0 \qj \sa0 \sb0 \fs18 \ri0 \cf1 \i0 \intbl \cell \row }
\clbrdrl \trql \clvertalt \clwWidth600 \cellx600
\clbrdrr \trql \clwWidth9480 \cellx10080
\intbl
{\li0 \ri0
{\li0 \f2 \b0 \ql \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "#co_footnoteReference_FN_F2_ID0EKJAC_1" }{\fldrslt
2
\par
}
}
{\li0 \ri0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs18 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs18 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs18 \cf1 \i0
We note that the Commission has long held that the rules laid down by the U.S.
Supreme Court in
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs18 \cf1 \i0
McDonnell Douglas Corp.
}
}
in proving a Title VII claim are also applicable in proving an age discrimination
claim.
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs18 \cf5 \i0
Loeb v. Textron, 600 F.2d 1003 (1st Cir. 1979)
}
}\f2 \strike0 \ul1 \b0 \sa0 \sb0 \fs18 \cf5 \i0 }}
;
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs18 \cf1 \i0
Kentroh v. Frontier Airlines. Inc.
}
}
. 585 F.2d 96 (10th Cir. 1978);
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs18 \cf5 \i0
Cova v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 574 F.2d 958 (8th Cir. 1978)
}
. In
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs18 \cf5 \i0
Gross v. FBL Financial Services. Inc.
}
}
, ___ U.S. ___, 129 S. Ct. 2343 (2009)
, the Supreme Court reviewed the statutory language of the ADEA\rquote s
prohibition of discrimination \u8220\'3fbecause of\u8221\'3f age, set forth in
}
umentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_7b9b000044381" }{\fldrslt
29 U.S.C. \u167\'3f 623(a)(1)
, which applies to private sector employers. Based on this language, the Court
concluded that for a plaintiff to ultimately prevail in a private sector ADEA
claim, he or she must demonstrate that \u8220\'3fbut for\u8221\'3f age the alleged
discriminatory employment action would not have occurred. The Court then concluded
that this \u8220\'3fbut for\u8221\'3f causation requirement precludes application
of a mixed motive analysis to claims arising under
}
umentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_7b9b000044381" }{\fldrslt
29 U.S.C.\u167\'3f 623(a)(1)
.
\par
}
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs18 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs18 \cf1 \i0
However, another section of the ADEA applies to the prohibition of age
discrimination in the federal sector.
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs18 \cf1 \i0
See
}
}
}
findType=L&pubNum=1000546&cite=29USCAS633A&originatingDoc=I411fd1bb779d11e0b63e897a
b6fa6920&refType=RB&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=Do
cumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_8b3b0000958a4" }{\fldrslt
{\f2 \b0 \fs18 \cf5 \i0
29 U.S.C. \u167\'3f 633a(a)
}
(all personnel actions in federal employment \u8220\'3fshall be made free from any
discrimination based on age\u8221\'3f). Contrary to the holding in
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs18 \cf1 \i0
Gross
}
}
, the court in
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs18 \cf1 \i0
Fuller v. Gates, Secretary of Defense
}
}
concluded that
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs18 \cf1 \i0
Gross
}
}
applied to private employment, and not employment by the federal government.
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs18 \cf1 \i0
See
}
}
}
findType=Y&serNum=2021500045&pubNum=0000999&originatingDoc=I411fd1bb779d11e0b63e897
ab6fa6920&refType=RP&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=D
{\f2 \b0 \fs18 \cf5 \i0
Fuller v. Gates, Secretary of Defense
}
}
, 2010 WL 774965 (E.D. Tx. March 1, 2010)
. The court in
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs18 \cf1 \i0
Fuller
}
}
found that the different language in the two sections of the ADEA demonstrated
that Congress intended different meanings.
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs18 \cf1 \i0
Id.
}
}
Further, the
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs18 \cf1 \i0
Fuller
}
}
court determined that based on its plain meaning, \u8220\'3ffree from
any\u8221\'3f must be construed as being broader than \u8220\'3fbecause
of,\u8221\'3f such that the \u8220\'3fmixed motive analysis\u8221\'3f continues to
apply in age discrimination claims against the federal government.
}
{\f2 \b0 \fs18 \cf1 \i0
Id.
\par
}
}
}
}
}
}
}\f2 \li0 \strike0 \ul1 \b0 \qj \sa0 \sb0 \fs18 \ri0 \cf1 \i0 \intbl \cell \row }
\clbrdrb \clbrdrl \trql \clvertalt \clwWidth600 \cellx600
\clbrdrb \clbrdrr \trql \clwWidth9480 \cellx10080
\intbl
{\li0 \ri0
{\li0 \f2 \b0 \ql \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\f2 \b0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0
{\field {\*\fldinst HYPERLINK "#co_footnoteReference_FN_F3_ID0E6MAC_1" }{\fldrslt
3
\par
}
}
{\li0 \ri0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs18 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs18 \cf1 \i0
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs18 \cf1 \i0
A \u8220\'3fhung jumper\u8221\'3f occurs when a jumper jumps out of an aircraft,
and her static line does not deploy the chute, resulting in the jumper hanging on
the side of the aircraft. HT, p. 304.
\par
}
}
}
}
}\f2 \li0 \strike0 \ul0 \b0 \qj \sa0 \sb0 \fs18 \ri0 \cf1 \i0 \intbl \cell
\row }}\par
}
{\li0 \f3 \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \qc \i0
EEOC DOC 0120090596 (E.E.O.C.), 2011 WL 1690815
\par
}
}
{\li0 \f2 \qj \b0 \ri0 \fs20 \cf1 \i0 {
\clpadt24 \clpadft3 \clpadl100 \clpadfl3 \clpadr24 \clpadfr3 \clbrdrt \brdrw10
\brdrcf22 \brdrs \clbrdrb \clbrdrl \trql \clvertalt \clwWidth4320 \cellx4320
\clpadt24 \clpadft3 \clpadl100 \clpadfl3 \clpadr24 \clpadfr3 \clbrdrt \brdrw10
\brdrcf22 \brdrs \clbrdrb \clbrdrr \trql \clvertalt \clwWidth5760 \cellx10080
\intbl
{\li24 \ri24
{\li24 \f2 \b1 \ql \ri24 \fs16 \cf22 \i0
End of Document
\par
}
}
}\f2 \li24 \strike0 \ul0 \b1 \sa0 \ql \sb0 \fs16 \ri24 \cf22 \i0 \intbl \cell
\intbl
{\li24 \ri24
{\li24 \f2 \b0 \ri24 \fs16 \cf22 \qr \i0
\u169\'3f 2017 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
\par
}
}
}\f2 \li24 \strike0 \ul0 \b0 \sa0 \sb0 \fs16 \ri24 \cf22 \i0 \qr \intbl \cell
\row }}\par
}
}\sect }

Milton e Williams Complainant V John M Mchugh Secretary Department of The Army A

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Milton e Williams Complainant V John M Mchugh Secretary Department of The Army A

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

{\rtf1 \ansi

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi