Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01726/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01726-14/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Employment Discrimination

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RONALD L. PRONECHEN, ) 

 )

 Plaintiff, ) 

 )

 v. )

 )

SECRETARY OF U.S. DEPARTMENT )

OF HOMELAND SECURITY, )

 ) 

 Defendant. )

______________________________)

ED-CV 06-1726-LEW

STATEMENT OF

UNCONTROVERTED FACTS

AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

After consideration of the papers in support of and in

opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, this

Court makes the following findings of fact and conclusions

of law:

UNCONTROVERTED FACTS

1. On March 30, 2004, Plaintiff made initial contact

with an Equal Employment Opportunity counselor. Plaintiff

filed a formal Equal Employment Opportunity complaint on May

19, 2004. The formal complaint identified numerous nonCase 2:06-cv-01726-LEW Document 119 Filed 04/15/10 Page 1 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

selections for positions with the Department of Homeland

Security for which Plaintiff had applied. David R. Kett was

responsible for administratively processing Plaintiff’s

formal Equal Employment Opportunity complaint. [Dock. No.

88, Decl. Kett ¶ 2].

2. After initiating his Equal Employment Opportunity

complaint, Plaintiff received a Rights and Responsibilities

Memorandum. Plaintiff signed a Certification of Receipt of

the Rights and Responsibilities Memorandum. By signing the

Certification of Receipt, Plaintiff averred that he had been

advised of his responsibilities during the administrative

processing of his complaint. [Dock. No. 116, Decl. Kett ¶

4].

3. Paragraph 3 of the Rights and Responsibilities

Memorandum outlines the procedure for submitting amendment

requests to the agency. To request an amendment, a

complainant must submit a letter describing the new incident

and stating that the complainant wishes to amend his pending

complaint to include the new claim. In 2004, a complainant

seeking amendment was required to send a letter to the Equal

Employment Opportunity Complaints Program Management Office

in Fort Snelling, Minnesota. [Dock. No. 116, Decl. Kett ¶

6].

4. On June 7, 2004, the Federal Protective Service

headquarters issued a directive establishing a hiring

freeze. Under the terms of the hiring freeze, vacancies

Case 2:06-cv-01726-LEW Document 119 Filed 04/15/10 Page 2 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

3

within the Federal Protective Service could not be filled

with applicants not employed by the Federal Protective

Service at the time of application. The hiring freeze was

in effect, when Announcement 0492414 was open for

applications from July 19, 2004 to July 23, 2004. [Dock.

No. 100, Decl. Kett ¶ 11].

5. On or about June 30, 2004, a waiver of the hiring

freeze was requested for the GS-13 position listed under

Announcement 0492414. The waiver was not granted. [Dock.

No. 116, Decl. Loerzel ¶ 4]. 

6. In July of 2004, Plaintiff applied for a position

listed under Announcement 0492414. Announcement 0492414 was

for a Supervisory Physical Security Specialist in

Sacramento, CA. The position listed under Announcement

0492414 was open for application in July of 2004. [Dock. No.

100, Exh. A at 184:23-185:21].

7. Announcement 0492414 limited eligible applicants to

Department of Homeland Security employees within the local

commuting area of the position. [Dock. No. 100, Exh. A at

185:10-17]. 

8. Plaintiff was not a Department of Homeland Security

employee, when he applied to the position listed under

Announcement 0492414. [Dock. No. 100, Exh. A at 185:19-23]. 

9. On July 29, 2004, Plaintiff received notice of his

non-selection for the position listed under Announcement

0492414. [Dock. No. 100, Exh. A at 187:14-21].

Case 2:06-cv-01726-LEW Document 119 Filed 04/15/10 Page 3 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

4

10. Plaintiff was informed that his application for the

position listed under Announcement 0492414 could not be

considered because he was not a Department of Homeland

Security employee at the time of application. [Dock. No.

100, Exh. A at 187:14-188:2].

11. On August 1, 2004, Plaintiff sent an e-mail, asking

if an oversight authority exists “to make this agency play

by the rules,” to the Office of Personnel Management, as

well as to Department of Homeland Security management and

personnel staff. [Dock. No. 116, Decl. Kett ¶ 7].

12. On August 25, 2004, Plaintiff sent an e-mail to

David R. Kett, which included a copy of the e-mail Plaintiff

had sent on August 1, 2004. [Dock. No. 116, Decl. Kett ¶ 8].

13. The e-mail never stated that Plaintiff desired to

amend his ongoing Equal Employment Opportunity Complaint

filed on May 19, 2004, or that Plaintiff believed he had

been discriminated against based on his age with regards to

his application for the position listed under Announcement

0492414. [Dock. No. 116, Decl. Kett ¶¶ 8-10]. 

14. Plaintiff did not submit a letter to request an

amendment of his ongoing Equal Employment Opportunity

complaint, as outlined by the Rights and Responsibilities

Memorandum. [Dock. No. 116, Decl. Kett ¶¶ 4-6,8]. 

///

///

/// 

Case 2:06-cv-01726-LEW Document 119 Filed 04/15/10 Page 4 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

5

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. Plaintiff failed to file an entirely new Equal

Employment Opportunity complaint after receiving notice of

his non-selection for the position listed under Announcement

0492414. Also, Plaintiff failed to file a proper amendment

request for his ongoing Equal Employment Opportunity

complaint because Plaintiff failed to follow the guidelines

set by the Rights and Responsibilities Memorandum. 

Therefore, Plaintiff’s claim of discrimination with respect

to his application for the position listed under

Announcement 0492414 is time barred.

2. Plaintiff successfully establishes a prima facie

case of age discrimination. Cotton v. City of Alameda, 812

F.2d 1245, 1248 (9th Cir. 1987). Plaintiff is between the

age of forty to seventy years old. Id. Plaintiff was

qualified for the position. See Cotton, 812 F.2d at 1248;

See Gomez-Perez v. Potter, 553 U.S. 474, 128 S.Ct 1931, 1932

(2008). A younger person with similar qualifications did

receive the position. See Cotton, 812 F.2d at 1248. 

Defendant successfully meets its burden shifting standard by

articulating a “legitimate, nondiscriminatory” reason for

not hiring Plaintiff, the hiring freeze. Id. The Court

finds the hiring freeze to be a “legitimate,

nondiscriminatory” reason for not hiring Plaintiff. See id.

Moreover, Plaintiff fails to meet his burden shifting

standard by showing that Defendant’s “legitimate,

Case 2:06-cv-01726-LEW Document 119 Filed 04/15/10 Page 5 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

6

nondiscriminatory” reason is merely a pretext for

discrimination. See id.

3. Judgment shall be entered in Defendant’s favor as

to Announcement 0492414 consistent herewith. 

DATED: April 14, 2010

__________________________________

 HONORABLE RONALD S.W. LEW

 Senior, U.S. District Court Judge

Case 2:06-cv-01726-LEW Document 119 Filed 04/15/10 Page 6 of 6