EEOC Appeal 2020000150

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Billy B.,1
Complainant,
v.
Michael R. Pompeo,
Secretary,
Department of State,
Agency.
Appeal No. 2020000150
Hearing No. 570-2017-01282X
Agency No. DOS-0294-16
DECISION
On October 6, 2019, Complainant filed an appeal, pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.403(a), from the
Agency’s September 9, 2019 final order concerning an equal employment opportunity (EEO)
complaint claiming 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.
BACKGROUND
During the period at issue, Complainant was employed by Pacific Architects and Engineers (PAE),
working as a general justice advisor in the Agency’s Criminal Justice Support Program in
Monrovia, Libera from June 12, 2012 through April 17, 2016.
On August 26, 2016, Complainant filed the instant formal complaint. Complainant claimed that
the Agency discriminated against him based on race (association with someone of African race),
national origin (association with someone of Liberian national origin), and in reprisal for protected
EEO activity (current EEO activity) when:
1 This case has been randomly assigned a pseudonym which will replace Complainant’s name
when the decision is published to non-parties and the Commission’s website.

2 	2020000150
1. 	on April 12, 2016, the Agency requested the contract company PAE to terminate
Complainant’s position as a Justice Advisor in Monrovia, Liberia; and
2. 	in November 2016, the Agency advised a contracting company, Tetra Tech, not to
select Complainant for the Prosecution Advisor position at the U.S. Embassy in
Monrovia.
After an investigation, the Agency provided Complainant with a copy of the investigative file, and
Complainant requested a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). The AJ assigned to
the case issued a Notice of Proposed Summary Judgment on June 17, 2019. 	The Agency and
Complainant responded to the Notice of Proposed Summary Judgment. 	On July 31, 2019, the AJ
issued a decision by summary judgment in favor of the Agency, finding no discrimination. The
Agency thereafter issued the instant final order implementing the AJ’s decision.
The instant appeal followed.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
The Commission's regulations allow an AJ to grant summary judgment when he or she finds that
there is no genuine issue of material fact. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.109(g). 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. 	In
rendering this appellate decision, we must scrutinize the AJ’s legal and factual conclusions, and
the Agency’s final order adopting them, de novo. 	See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.405(a) (stating that a
“decision on an appeal from an Agency’s final action shall be based on a de novo review…”); see
also Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive for 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 (EEO-MD-
110), at Chap. 9, § VI.B. (as revised, August 5, 2015) (providing that an administrative judge’s
determination to issue a decision without a hearing, and the decision itself, will both be reviewed
de novo).
To successfully oppose a decision by summary judgment, a complainant must identify, with
specificity, facts in dispute either within the record or by producing further supporting evidence,
and must further establish that such facts are material under applicable law. Such a dispute would
indicate that a hearing is necessary to produce evidence to support a finding that the agency was
motivated by discriminatory animus.
Here, however, Complainant failed to establish such a dispute. Even construing any inferences
raised by the undisputed facts in favor of Complainant, a reasonable fact-finder could not find in
Complainant’s favor.
In finding no discrimination by summary judgment, the AJ found that the record developed during
the investigation established the following undisputed facts.

3 	2020000150
During the relevant period Complainant was employed by PAE, working as a general justice
advisor in the Agency’s Criminal Justice Support Program in Monrovia, Libera from June 12, 2012
through April 17, 2016.
Regarding claim 1, Complainant asserted that on April 12, 2016, the Agency requested the contract
company PAE terminate his position as a Justice Advisor in Monrovia, Liberia.
The AJ noted that the Agency’s Standard of Conduct states that employees assigned to locations
outside the United States must observe the applicable U.S. mission regulations, including non-
fraternization 	with 	the 	host 	country nationals. 	The 	AJ 	further 	noted 	that 	Complainant
acknowledged that the termination of his justice advisor position was based upon violation of the
non-fraternization policy when he had a relationship with a Liberian woman during the time he
was working in Liberia.
The AJ noted that the Contracting Specialist requested that Complainant be removed from the
Liberia contract “for violating H.7 of the base contract - 	I did not direct PAE to terminate his
employment with them.” 	She stated that PAE was assigned “with investigation [of] someone
under the Liberia contract who was thought to have violated section H. 7 of the contract; [named
contractor]. 	During the investigation, they also concluded that [Complainant] had also violated
H.7 by having what they described as an intimate relationship with a local national. 	This is in
direct violation of the base contract.”
Furthermore, the Contracting Specialist stated that after talking to her supervisor “we both agreed
that this did violate the contract terms and the person should be removed from the contract. [PAE
contact] from PAE responded the same day and said that PAE would take prompt action. 	That
was the only conversation I had with PAE on the matter.”
Regarding claim 2, Complainant alleged that in November 2016, the Agency advised the
contracting company, Tetra Tech, not to select Complainant for the Prosecution Advisor position
at the U.S. Embassy in Monrovia.
The AJ noted that several months following Complainant’s removal from the justice advisor
position, Tetra Tech notified the Agency that it submitted Complainant as a candidate for a
prosecution advisor position in Liberia. 	The Industrial Security Division Chief (Caucasian,
American) 	explained that while her office was not contracted directly by Tetra Tech regarding
Complainant, the IJSI Facility Security officer “did reach out to my office requesting information
regarding forms required to facilitate the Complainant’s vetting and was subsequently informed
that, per the Contracting Officer’s Representative, the Complainant was not approved to perform
on the Liberia task order.”
Complainant asserted that Tetra Tech’s failure to hire him directly tied to reaction to his association
with a Liberian woman. The Industrial Security Division Chief asserted that her office was not
contacted by Tetra Tech regarding a reference check for Complainant.

4 	2020000150
She explained that her office was contacted by Integrated Justice Systems International (IJSI)
Facility Security Office, which had requested regarding information regarding whether or not
Complainant would be eligible for revalidation, or would require a full security package in order
to be vetted for performance on their newly awarded Criminal Justice Program Support (CJPS)
Liberia task order.
The Industrial Security Division Chief averred neither she nor anyone on her staff had any
knowledge that an EEO complaint was filed by Complainant previously. She maintained that “no
one on my staff nor I advise contracting companies who they may or may not hire. 	As noted
above, in accordance with the PAE contractor under which the Complainant was working
previously, neither he nor anyone else on the PAE contract was supposed to fraternize with host
country nationals; in this circumstances, that would mean Liberians. It was his failure to adhere
to contract requirements that resulted in the Contracting Officer’s Representative disapproving
Complainant for subsequent contract performance on the IJSI contract.”
Further, the AJ noted that Complainant did not identify employees outside of his protected classes
who violated the non-fraternization policy were similar treated by the Agency and had their
contract positions terminated. Furthermore, Complainant did not show that employees outside of
his protected classes were approved for follow-up contracts after violating a provision of the
previous contact under which they worked, or that the reasons Industrial Security Division Chief
gave for curtailing Complainant’s position with the Agency was not true or motivated by animus
based on his alleged protected bases.
In sum, after careful consideration of all Complainant’s allegations and the evidence of record,
there is adequate support the AJ’s determination that the responsible management officials clearly
articulated legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for its actions. Beyond his bare assertions,
Complainant has simply provided no evidence to support his claim that his treatment was the result
of his race, national origin or prior protected activity.
CONCLUSION
We AFFIRM the Agency’s final order, implementing the AJ’s decision without a hearing, finding
no discrimination.

5 	2020000150
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0617)
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. A party shall have
twenty (20) calendar days of receipt of another party’s timely request for reconsideration in
which to submit a brief or statement in opposition. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.405; Equal Employment
Opportunity Management Directive for 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 (EEO MD-110), at Chap. 9 § VII.B
(Aug. 5, 2015). All requests and arguments must be submitted to the Director, Office of Federal
Operations, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. 	Complainant’s request may be
submitted via regular mail to P.O. Box 77960, Washington, DC 20013, or by certified mail to 131
M Street, NE, Washington, DC 20507. 	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 agency’s request must be submitted
in digital format via the EEOC’s Federal Sector EEO Portal (FedSEP). 	See 29 C.F.R. §
1614.403(g). 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.

6 	2020000150
RIGHT TO REQUEST COUNSEL (Z0815)
If you want to file a civil action but cannot pay the fees, costs, or security to do so, you may request
permission from the court to proceed with the civil action without paying these fees or costs.
Similarly, if you cannot afford an attorney to represent you in the civil action, you may request the
court to appoint an attorney for you. You must submit the requests for waiver of court costs or
appointment of an attorney directly to the court, not the Commission. The court has the sole
discretion to grant or deny these types of requests. Such requests do not alter the time limits for
filing a civil action (please read the paragraph titled Complainant’s Right to File a Civil Action for
the specific time limits).
FOR THE COMMISSION:
______________________________ 	Carlton M. Hadden’s signature
Carlton M. Hadden, Director
Office of Federal Operations
September 30, 2020
Date