This is a perfect example why we appeal an EEOC claim that was ruled incorrectly.
My question is: why is it being ruled incorrectly by AJ, when the direct evidence exists for the AJ to read?
In some cases your EEOC complaint never leaves your agency, and the agency bias is very apparent.
If I knew how to complain about the biased opinion, I would complain against the judge as well.
In finding that summary judgment was appropriate in this matter, the
AJ in complaints I and II determined that no genuine issue of material
fact remained that required an oral hearing and that complainant had
not offered any evidence that suggested discrimination or retaliation.
However, as stated in our prior decision, the record demonstrates that the
AJ was aware that the agency’s Inspector General (IG) was investigating
false statements made by complainant’s Supervisor (S1) during the
investigation. The record before the AJ contained a report from the
agency’s EEO counselor which stated that S1 admitted to destroying
missing evidence. We concur with the finding in our prior decision
that these factors should have afforded a reason to the AJ to hesitate
before proceeding in a summary fashion, and thus summary judgment was
not appropriate. Further, we concur with the prior decision’s finding
that there was direct evidence in the record of retaliation on the part of
the agency regarding the agency’s denial of certification for a management
position in June of 1997. We also concur with our prior finding that an
adverse inference could be made against the agency for the destruction
of evidence which would have reflected unfavorably on the agency, as it
contained evidence of an intent to retaliate against complainant for his
prior EEO activity. As such, we find no error in the prior decision’s
finding that complainant demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence
that the agency’s decision not to certify him for a management position
beginning in June of 1997 and his subsequent non-selection for a position
as a supervisory revenue officer were due to retaliation for his threats
to file an EEO complaint and his pursuit of discrimination claims.
The above is in reference to:
David B. Rehbein v. Department of the Treasury
05A50666 and 05A50667
March 15, 2006
.
David B. Rehbein,
Complainant,
v.
John W. Snow,
Secretary,
Department of the Treasury,
Agency.
Request Nos. 05A60666 and 05A50667
Appeal Nos. 01A32184 and 01A43703
Agency Nos. 00-4029; 99-4073; 98-4020; and 98-4133
Hearing Nos. 350-99-8276X; 320-2003-0866; and 340-AO-3269X
