UNITED STATESDISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

M ARCIA TAYLOR,

FILED BY D,C,

SE? 212922

AXGEU.A.fE..pioiuàt-il cuEnktlsDls'rcT.

s.D.o!z/1-./.-MiAvl

Plaintiff,

CivilActionNo.

ALEJANDRO N.M AYORKAS,

SECRETARY,U.S.DEPARTM ENT OF

HOM ELAND SECURITY,

Defendant.

JURY TRIAL DEM ANDED

COM PLAINT

Plaintiff,M arciaTaylor,Pro Se,alleges:

ThisactionisbroughtbyM arciaTaylor,Pro Seandproceedinginformapauperis,toenforcethe

provisionsofTitleVlloftheCivilRightsActof1964,42U.S.C.j2000e,etseq.(û-l-itleVlI'')',5U.S.C.

j2302,etseq;Title18oftheU.S.Codej1001,etseq,andforclaim ofConstructiveDismissal.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

ThisCourthasjurisdictionoftheactionunder42U.S.C.j2000e.(9and28

U.S.C.j1345.Venueisproperinthisjudicialdistrictunder42U.S.C.j2003-5(9(3)and28U.S.C.

1391(b),becauseitiswhereasubstantialpartoftheeventsoromissionsgivingrisetothecauseof

action hereinoccurred.

Defendant,AlejandroN.Mayorkas,Secretary,U.S.DepartmentofHomeland

1

Case 1:22-cv-22805-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2022 Page 1 of 29
Security(DHS),isaFederalAgency,operatingundertheExecutiveBranchofthelawsoftheUnited

StatesofAmerica,pursuantto40U.S.Codej1315.

4. DHS isatlperson''withinthemeaningof42U.S.C.j2000e(a)andantlemployer''withingthe

meaningof42U.S.C.j20003(b).

5. TheEqualEmploymentOpportunityCommission((kEEOC'')receivedatimelycharge(EEOC

CaseNo.HS-lCE-02819-2018)filedbyMarciaTayloronoraboutJune20,2018.lnhischarge,Ms.

Tayloralleged,interalta,thatshehadbeendiscriminatedagainstbasedonrace(AfricanAmerican),

Color(black/darkskin),sex(female),age(YOB:1967),andreprisal(participation),byhersupervisors.

Ms.Tayloralsoclaimedthatshewasdiscriminatedagainstandpreventedfrom applyingforajob

promotionthatwasgrantedtonumerousothercoworkers,basedontheaboveprotectedelass.Pursuant

toSection706ofTitleVll,theEEOC investigatedthecharge,andfoundthatm anagementdidstopM s.

Taylor'sjobapplicationfrom beingproccssed,andthatmanagementdidpromoteawhiteHispanic,

m aleemployeeintothepositionby wayofanalteredhiringcertificate. M s.Tayloragreedtoenterinto

aEEOC hearingforsettlem entwithDHS however, DHSrefusedtom akeany settlementoffertoM s.

Taylor.

6. TheEEOC attem ptedunsuccessfullytoachievesettlem entthroughconsideration

ofvoluntaryresolutionofthecharge, andafternegotiationsforsettlementofEEOC CaseN o.510-2021-

00227X failed,andaFinalAgeneyDecision(FAD)wassubsequentlyissued,uponM s.Taylor's

request.

AllconditionsprecedenttotheGlingofsuithavebeenperform edorhaveoccurred.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

8.Ms.Taylor(Taylor)settledseveralEEOCcasesunderEEOCCoul'tcase#510-

2014-00365X,EEOC case#HS-lCE-00716-2013andEEOC case#HS-lCE-26580-2016.

Case 1:22-cv-22805-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2022 Page 2 of 29
9. TaylorwaspromotedintoaGS9positionin2015.

10.lmm ediatelyafterTaylor'spromotionintotheGS9position,managementcreatedahostile

workingenvironm entandbeganretaliationandharassmentuponTaylor,by assigningherwithGS

12/13/14worktasks,thatwasnotlistedonherjobdescription.

M anagem entactedwithreprisalagainstTaylorbycontinuingtoassignhermoreGS 12/13/14

worktasks.

12. M anagementassignedtheGS 12/13/14worktasksfrom atleastJune2015toJuly2018.

13. OnM arch20,2018,TaylorappliedforapromotionalthatmatchedtheGS 12/13/14worktasks

assignedby managementfrom June2015toJuly2018.

OnoraroundJune 19,2018,managem entactedwithdiscrimination,harassm ent,andreprisal

againstTaylor,bystoppingherjobapplicationsentthroughthechain-of-commandandviaFedExmail

deliveryandaddressedtotheFieldOfficeDirector(hiringofficial).

15. M anagem enttreatedTaylordifferentthanotheremployees,andmanagementalsoconstantly

showedfavoritism tothewhite,Hispanic,m aleemployeenotedintheEEOC complaint.

16. DuringtheEEOC investigation,m anagementstatedthatTaylorwastreateddifferentlybecause

theselectedcandidatehad specialcircum stances.

17. DuringtheEEOC investigation,managementdidnotdefinewhatspecialcircum stanceswere

consideredfortheseleetedcandidate.

18.DuringtheEEOC investigation,managementadm ittedtopreventingTaylor'sapplicationfrom

3

Case 1:22-cv-22805-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2022 Page 3 of 29
being forwardedthroughthechain-of-comm andtothehiringofficial.

19.Taylorallegessom eotherspecificexamplesofdiscrim inationandreprisalagainstherinclude

thefolowing:(a)Noothercandidateswereblockedfrom applyingforthejob.(b)Theselected

candidatewasplacedinthejobwithoutevidencethathesubmitedhisapplicationinatimelymanner.

(c)Theselectedcandidateisawhite,Hispanic,male,andmaybeafriendorrelativeofmanagement.(d)

Theselectedcandidatedidnothaveanyexperienceinakeyroleofthejobpriortobeinghired.

(e)TaylorwastheonlyapplicantintheMiamiDistrictofficeperformingakeyroleofthejobatthe

time.(9 TheEEOC investigationfoundproofthatthestaffingofficedoesnothaverecordofreceiving

theselectedcandidate'sapplicationinatimelymanner.(g)TheEEOC investigationfoundproofthat

Taylor'sapplicationwasneverforwardedtothehiringofficialforconsideration.(i)TheEEOC

investigationfoundthatmanagem entalteredthehiringcertiticateandwrotetheselectedcandidate's

namein,aheraselectionwasmade.(j)TheEEOCinvestigationfoundthattheselectedcandidatewas

hiredusinganalteredhiringcertificate.(k)TheEEOC investigationfoundthatDHSmanipulatedthe

hiringdocum entsandhandwroteinthecandidate'snameontothehiringcertificate,afteraselection was

made.(l)TheEEOCinvestigationfoundthatDHSmanipulatedthehiringprocessandplacedthe

selectedcandidateintothepositionwithoutproofofapplicationtrail.

20.Taylorallegesthatitiscom monpracticeintheDHSM iamiDistrictOfficer,formanagementto

hiretheirfriendsandrelativeswithnoformerexperienceorknowledgeofthejob,insteadofother

employeeswhowereskilledand/orperfonningthejob.

21. Taylorallegesthatm anagementdiscrim inatedagainstherbecausesheisinaprotectedclass

4

Case 1:22-cv-22805-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2022 Page 4 of 29
andbecausemanagem entwantedawhite,Hispanic,m alewhowasalsoafriendorpossiblerelativeof

management.

22.Taylorturned overtheGS 12/13/14taskstotheselectedcandidateafterm anagementprevented

herapplicationfrom beingprocessed.

23.Taylorallegesthatm anagementknew orshouldhaveknownthattheselectedcandidatecould

notcompletetheGS 12/13/14tasksafterbeinghired.

24.Taylorallegesthatmanagem entcreatedahostileworkenvironmentandretaliated againstherby

orderinghertoprovidetrainingtotheselectedcandidatetodotheGS 12/13/14worktasks.

25.M anagem entorderedTaylortoprovidetrainingtotheselectedcandidates,GS 13/14m embers

ofmanagementandtotheentireM iamiDistrict.

26.Taylorallegesthatmanagem entfurtherretaliated againstherbyinitiatingaDHSinternallocal

criminalinvestigationagainstherfor:(1)allegedlymakingunauthorizedATM withdrawalswhileon

approvedtravel,and(2)allegedlywritingabadcheckthatbounced,totheFederalGovernment.

27. Taylorallegesthatm anagementmadefalsestatementswhenDHSconductedtheinternallocal

criminalinvestigationbecause:(1)allATM withdrawalsmadebyTaylorwereapprovedby

managementbothbeforeandaftera1ltravel.(2)nolimitforwithdrawalswasestablishedbyDHSatany

timebeforeoraftertravel.(3)DHSdidnotadviseTaylorofanywithdrawallimitsbeforeoraftertravel.

(4)DHSdidnotproduceabadcheckthatbounced,writtenbyTayloratanytimeduringtheEEOC

investigation.(5)DHSdeniedTaylorherrighttoappealthefinaldecisionoftheinternallocalcriminal

investigation.(6)DHSisholdingaderogatorywritenfinaldecisionwhichstatesthatTaylordidmake

5

Case 1:22-cv-22805-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2022 Page 5 of 29
unauthorizedATM withdrawalsduringtravelandTaylorwroteabadcheckthatbounced.(7)Taylor

allegesthatDHShaspreventerherfrom re-applyingwiththederogatorywrittenfinaldecision.

28.Taylorsufferedemotionaldistressasaresultoftheongoingdiscrimination,harassm ent,and

retaliationwhich sheendured whileemployedbyDHSfrom 2015toDecem ber2018.

29.Taylorallegesthatshewasforcedtoresignfrom herjobwhenmanagementcreatedastressful,

hostileworkenvironm entandcontinuedretaliatingagainsther.

Taylorallegesthatshesufferedoverwhelm ingdiscrim ination,stress,andhostileworking

environm ent.

31.Taylorallegesthatshewasforcedtoresignedbecauseoftheharassm entandreprisalfrom DHS

andthatshewasultimatelyterm inationviaconstructivedischargefrom hercareer.

ALLEGATIONS

CO UNT I

TitleVll.42U.S.C.k2000e-2(a)

H ostileW orkEnvironm entBased onRace.Color.Sex.Age

32.Plaintiffre-allegesandincorporatedbyreferencetheallegationssetforthinparagraph 1-31,

above.

33. On 11/14/2016,Taylorsettledthefollowing EEOC caseswithDHS:EEOC Courtcase# 510-

2014-00365X,forEEOC case#HS-1CE-00716-2013andEEOC case#HS-1CE-26580-2016.

34. Taylorallegesthatshewassingledoutbymanagementandtreateddifferentlyduringthehiring

PI-OCCSS.

6

Case 1:22-cv-22805-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2022 Page 6 of 29
Taylorallegesthediscriminatoryactsagainstherwereunwelcom ed,sufficientlysevereor

pervasive,detrimentallyaffectedher.

36.Taylorviewedtheactsofmanagementassubjectivelyhostileandabusive,andwouldbeviewed

asobjectivelyhostileandabusivetoareasonableperson.

37. M s.Taylorcomplainedtosupervisorsaboutthehostileworkenvironment,discrim inationand

harassm entsheendured,and DHS supervisorshadactualorconstructiveknowledgeoftheongoing

hostilework environment,discrim ination,andharassment.

TaylorallegesthatDHS failedtotakepromptandappropriaterem edialactiontopreventor

correctfurtherhostileworkenvironment,discrim ination,andharassmentofTaylor.

39. TaylorallegesthatDHSdiscriminatedagainstheronthebasisofrace,color,sex,agein

violationofSection703(a)ofTitleV11,42U.S.C.j2000e02(a).

CO UNT 11

TitleVl1.42U.S.C.k2000e-3(a)

Retaliation AaainstM arciaTavlorforEngaxinzinProtected A- ctivil

40. Plaintiffre-claimedandincorporatesby referencetheallegationssetforthinparagraph 1-39,

above.

Taylorengaged inprotected activitywhen shecomplainedaboutdiscrim inationbasedonrace,

color,sex andage,hostileworkenvironment,harassment,andretaliation.

42.TheEEOCcomplaintconfirmedthatDHSstoppedTaylor'sjobapplicationfrom being

Case 1:22-cv-22805-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2022 Page 7 of 29
processedduringthedirecthireprocess,pursuantto5U.S.C.j3304.

43. Taylorallegesthatmanagem entatDHS knew ofM s.Taylor'spastEEOC complaints.

44.TheEEOC investigationconfirm edthatTaylor'sapplicationwasstopped from beingsubmitted

bymanagem entthroughthechain ofcomm andandviaFedExdelivery.

45.TheEEOCinvestigationconfirmedthatDHShasrecordofstoppingTaylor'sdirecthirejob

applicationfrom beingprocessed.

46.TheEEOC investigation showedthatDHS hasnorecordofhow theselectedthewhite,

Hispanic,malecandidatewasselectedfortheposition.

47.TheEEOC investigationconfirm edthatDHS alteredthehiringcertificateandhandwrotethe

selectedcandidatesnam eontheselectiondocumentaftertheselectionwasmade.

48.TheEEOC investigationconfirmedthatDHSprocessedthealteredhiringCertiticateandplaced

theselectedcandidateintheposition.

49.TheEEOC investigationconfirm edthatDHS didnotfollow federalpolicyduringthehiring

processingofTaylor'sapplication.

50.TheEEOC investigationconfirmedthatDHSfoundthatM s.Taylorwasqualified underltDirect

Hire''andwouldhavebeenconsideredforthejobifherapplicationtûwasnot''discardedbyDHS.

Taylorallegesthatthehostileworkenvironm entandretaliation sheenduredwoulddissuadea

reasonableemployeefrom m akingcom plaintsofdiscrim inaticm andharassment.

52.TaylorallegesthatDHSretaliatedagainstherforengaginginprotected activity inviolationof

8

Case 1:22-cv-22805-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2022 Page 8 of 29
Section704(a)ofTitleVll,42,U.S.C.j2000e-3(a).

COUNT IIl

5U.S.C.$2302

Prohibited PersonnelPractices

Plaintiffre-claimed andincorporatesbyreferencetheallegationssetforth inparagraph 1-52,

above.

54.TaylorallegesthatDHS discrim inatedagainstherbasedonprohibitedpersonnelpractices

claimed inhercomplaintfiledwithEEOC.

55.TaylorallegesthatDHSretaliatedagainstherbyinitiatinganinternal,local,criminal

investigationagainstherperson.

56.TaylorallegesthatDHSplacingaderogatorydocum entinherpermanentem ployeefile.

57.TaylorallegestheDHSisusingthederogatorydocumenttocontinuetoblockherfrom applying

forre-employmentwithDHS.

58.Taylorhasappliedforre-employm enttothesam epositionsheheldduringthisincident.and she

interviewedbutwasnotselectedbyDHS.

59. TaylorallegesthatDHShiredseveralcandidateswereselectedforthejobTaylorappliesfor,

whowerelessqualifiedforthejob.

60. Tayloralegesthatsomeoftheunqualifiedcandidateshiredforthejobsheappliedforwere

friendsand/orfam ilyofm anagem ent.

9

Case 1:22-cv-22805-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2022 Page 9 of 29
TaylorallegesthatDHSmadefalseallegationsinawrittendocumentclaim ingthatshemade

unauthorizedATM withdrawalswhileon authorizedofficialtravel.

62.TaylorallegesthatDHSm adefalseallegationsinawrittendocum entclaim ingthatshewrotea

ltBadcheckthebounced''toDHS.

63.Theprohibitedpersonnelpracticeswoulddissuadeareasonablepersonfrom applyingtoDHS

forre-em ploym ent.

64.DHSretaliatedagainstTaylorforengaginginprotectedactivityinviolationof5U.S.C.j

2302(b)(1)(4)(6)(7)(9)(10).

65.Violationoftheprohibitedpersonnelpracticeenduredby Taylorwoulddissuadeareasonable

em ployeefrom m akingcomplaintsofdiscriminationandharassm ent.

COUNT IV

Title18oftheU.S.Code11001

FalseStatem ent.Concealm ent

66. Plaintiffre-claimedandincorporatesbyreferencetheallegationssetfol'th inparagraph 1-65,

above.

67. TaylorallegesthatDHSm anagementinitiatedaninternalinvestigation againstherinretaliation

andreprisal.

68. TaylorallegesthatDHS managementmadeafalsestatem entagainstherbywritingthatshe

madeseveralunauthorizedATM withdrawalswhileonofficialgovernmenttravel.

10

Case 1:22-cv-22805-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2022 Page 10 of 29
69.TaylorallegesthatDHSm anagem entmadeafalsestatem entagainstherbywritingthatM s.

TaylorwroteabadcheckthebouncedtoDHS.

70.TaylorallegesthatDH Smanagementstoredthefinaldocumentofthecriminalinvestigation

againsther,inthelocalofficeindefinitely.

DHS managementdidnotsubmitthefindingsofthecrim inalinvestigation intoTaylor'sofficial

employeerecords.

72.TaylorallegesthatDHSretaliatedagainstherbymakingfalsestatem entsandfilingsaid false

statementsinherlocalemployeerecordsindetinitely,isinviolationofTitlel8U.S.C.j1001.

73.Taylorallegesthatthecrim inalinvestigationconductedagainstherby DHS woulddissuadea

reasonableemployeefrom makingcomplaintsofdiscriminationandharassm ent.

CO UNT V

ConstructiveDism issalClaim

74.Plaintiffre-claim edand incorporatesbyreferencetheallegationssetforthinparagraph 1-73,

above.

TaylorallegesthatDH Screatedanadverseworkingenvironm entbyassigningGS 12/13/14

levelworktoM s.Taylor,whileshewaspaidin aGS9position.

76.TayloralegesthatDHSstoppedherapplicationforajobshewasperformingandqualitiedfor.

77.TaylorallegesthatDHSassignerherjobdutiesattheGS12/13/l4level,withoutadjustingher

rateOfpay,fOrOvertwOyears.

Case 1:22-cv-22805-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2022 Page 11 of 29
78.TheEEOC investigationconfirm edthatmanagem enttoldTaylorthatshecannotapplyforthe

'

JobTayloralegesthatotheremployeeswhowerelessqualifiedforthejobwereallowed,by

management,toapplyforthejobviadirecthire.

80.Taylorallegesthatmanagementgavetheselectedcandidatepreferentialtreatm entand special

considerationduringthehiringprocess.

81.Taylorallegesthatm anagementdidnotgiveheranypreferentialtreatmentandspecial

considerationduringthehiringprocess.

82.TheEEOC investigationconfirm edthatTaylorwasorderedbymanagementtoProvidetraining

totheselectedcandidateaftertheselectedcandidatewasplacedinthejob.

83.Taylorallegesthatm anagementretaliatedagainstherbyorderinghertoprovidetrainingtothe

entireM iam iDistrictontheGS 12/13/14levelwork shewasorderedtoconductforovertwoyears.

84.TaylorallegesthatDHSignoredthefactthathertravelcardwaspaid in fullatthetim eofthe

crim inalinvestigationgeneratedby DHS.

85.TaylorallegesthatDHS hasallowedotheremployeestimetopayOffthebalanceofthetravel

card.

86.TaylorclaimedthatDH Sretaliatedagainstherbyconductedalocalcriminalinvestigationupon

herand failedtostatetheDH Spolicythatsubstantiatedthecrim inalinvestigation.

12

Case 1:22-cv-22805-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2022 Page 12 of 29
P

87.On 12/08/2018,Taylorsubm ittedaletterofresignation,statingthatshewasforcedtoresignf

rom hercareerbytheintentionalharassm entandretaliationfrom DHS.

88.TheretaliationenduredbyTaylorwoulddissuadeareasonablepersonfrom m akingcom plaints

ofdiscrimination andharassment.

PM YER FO- R RELIEFW HEREFORE,M arciaTaylor,praysthattheCourtwillgrantthefollowingrelief:

OrderDHS to:

(i) Ceasea1ldiscriminationandharassmentagainstTaylor,basedonher

protectedclassunderTitleVI1;

(a) OrderDHStodevelopandimplementappropriateandeffectivemeasures

designedtopreventdiscrim ination,harassment,andretaliation,includingbutnot

lim itedtopoliciesandtrainingformanagement.

Awardcompensatoly dam agestoTaylortofullycompensateherfor

injuriescausedbyDHS'Sdiscriminatoly,harassing,andretaliatoryconduct,

pursuanttoand withinthestatutory lim itationsofSection 102oftheCivilRights

Actof1991,42U.S.C j1981a;and

AwardTaylorReinstatementofherjobattheGS13/14step10level,intheFol4

M yersFloridaoffice;and

Awardpunitivedam agesof9timescompensatorydamages;and

OrderDHStopaya1ltaxesseparatefrom anysettlem entamount;and

(d)

(e)

13

Case 1:22-cv-22805-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2022 Page 13 of 29
(f) Alderogatorydocumentsheldinthelocalofficeberemovedand

deletedfrom Taylor'semployeerecord;and

Awardsuchadditionalreliefasjusticemayrequire,togetherwith

Taylor'scostsanddisbursementsinthisaction.

(g)

JURY DEM AND

TheUnitesStatesherebydemandsatrialbyjuryofallissuessotriablepursuanttoRule28ofthe

FederalRulesofCivilProcedureandSection102oftheCivilRightsActof1991,42U.S.C.j

1981(a).

Dated:August30,2022.

By:

M arciaTaylor,ProSe,

1213SW 34thTerrace

CapeCoral,FL 33914

N'larciataylor1rki-?gl't.x:.J.j.),.ç.j?.!z!

(954)394-7448

14

Case 1:22-cv-22805-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2022 Page 14 of 29
EXHIBIT 2- PROOFOF SERVICE OF FINALAGENCY DECISION

FinalActionforTaylor,Marcia(HS-lCE-02819-2018)-Secure

Davis,Tenedia<-renedia.Davis@hq.dhs.gov> Thu,JLln2,1:37PM

tomarciataylorl@ gmail.com,me

GoodAfternoon,

AtachedistheAgency'sFinalActioninthecaseofTaylor,Marcia(HS-ICE-02819-2018).Forsecurity

purposes,thisdocumenthasbeenpassword protected.Thepasswordwillbesentinaseparate

email.Please reply to this em ailtoacknowledge receiptoftheattachedfinalaction.

Ifyou haveanyquestionsorconcernsregardingthisdocument,pleasereplytothisemailwitha''cc''toour

customerserviceemailatcrclweeoa hq.dhs.nov

Tenedia Davis

EEO Specialist

CRCL

202-357-1256(P)

202-441-3088(C)

FinalActionforTaylor,Marcia(HS-1CE-02819-2018)-PW P

Inbox

Davis,Tenedia<-renedia.Davis@ hqadhs.gov> ThLl,Jtln2,1:38PM

tomarciataylorl@ gmail.com,me

GoodAfternoon,

Below isthe passwordtoopenthefinalactioninyourcase.The passwordiscasesensitive.Please reply

tothisem ailto confirm you canopenthefinalaction inyourcase.Ifyou haveanyquestionsor

concernsregardingthisinformation,please replytothisemailwitha'dcc''toourcustomerservice emailat

crcl.eeoa hq.dhs.nov.

DH52022Q3

(PleaseUseaIICAPS

Tenedia Davis

EEO Specialist

CRCL

202-357-1256(P)

202-441-3088(C)

Case 1:22-cv-22805-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2022 Page 15 of 29
()ftiQ.'e/('??'('ibilJ?/g/??,&aiîd(.73..ï/igl'lztli'tie.%

t''.S.lepartnlentofHomelandSecurity

'Wrashilgton.DC20528

gs'- ka H om eland

y .j! : @

s-,-,.J Securlty

M arciaTaylor,

Complainant

AgencyCaseNo.HS-lCE-02819-20l8

AlejandroN.Mayorkas,Secretary, EEOCCaseNo.510-2021-00227X

U.S.DepartmentofHomelandSecurity,

Agency

FINAL AG ENCY DECISIO N

Pursuantto29C.F.R j1614.1l0(b),theU.S.DepartmentofHomelandSecurity(Department),

OfficeforCivilRightsandCivilLiberties(CRCL)herebytakesfinalactionontheabovecaptionedcomplaintbyissuingaFinalAgencyDecision(FAD).lBaseduponareview ofthe

fullInvestigativeFile(lF),CRCLfindsthatComplainantfailedtoprovebyapreponderanceof

theevidencethatU.S.ImmigrationandCustomsEnforcement(1CE)discriminatcdagainsther.

Thenoticesofappealrightsaresetforth in theConclusionsection.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

OnJune20,2018,ComplainantinitiatedcontactwithanEqualEmploym entOpportunity

(EEO)Counselor.(lFat13and145)

OnFebruary 13,2019,lCEnotifiedComplainantoftheconclusionofEEO counseling

andofComplainant'srighttofileaformalcomplaint.(1Fat33-42).

OnFebruary25,2019,Complainanttiledtheformalcomplaintatissue.(lFat1-4).

lPursuanttotheHomelandSecurityActof2002,asamended,6U.S.C.j345,theOfficerforCivilRightsandCivil

Liberties(CRCL)shalensurethattheprotectionofcivilrightsandcivillibertiesisappropriatelyincorporatedinto

Departmentalprogramsandactivities.OnOctober26,20l2,theSecretaryfortheDepartmentissuedDelegation

Number19003,whichdelegatedtoCRCLtheauthoritytorenderfinaldecisionsonbehalfoftheSecretaryinEEO

complaints,pursuantto29C.F.R.j1614.110,oradministratively,whenthatregulationisnotapplicable.

Case 1:22-cv-22805-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2022 Page 16 of 29
4. OnSeptember9,2019,November20,2019,andFebruary22,2021, lCEforwarded

ComplainantacopyofthelnvestigativeFile,providingColuplainantwithnoticeof

Complainant'srighttorequestahearingbeforeanEEOCAdministrativeJudge(AJ)or,

alternatively,toreceiveaFAD.

ComplainantdidnotrequestahearingoraFAD.OnAprill3,2021, CRCL received

ICE'SrequestforaFAD.

6. OnM ay6,2021,CRCL remandedthecaseforsupplementalinvestigation.

OnoraroundJuly21,2021,1CE requestcd,andColuplainantapproved,anextensionto

completethesupplementalinvestigationintoherfonnalcomplaint.

OnNovember8,2021,lCE folw ardedComplainantacopyoftheSupplemental

lnvestigativeFile(SlF),providingComplainantwithnoticeofComplainant'srightto

requestahearingbeforeanEEOC AJor,alternatively,toreceiveaFAD.

OnNovember24,2021,ComplainantfiledarequestforahearingbeforeanEEOC AJ

10.OnApril19,2022,Complainantfiledamotiontowithdraw herrequestforahearing.

l1.lnanOrderreceivedbyCRCL onApril19,2022,anAJfrom EEOC'SM iam iDistrict

Officedism issedthecomplaintfrom theEEOC hearingprocessandremandeditto

CRCL to issueaFA D.

CLAIM S AT ISSUE

W hetherICEdiscriminatedagainstComplainantbasedonrace(AfricanAmerican),Color

(black/dark-skin),sex(female),age(YOB:1967),andreprisal(participation)when:

OnoraroundJune20,2018,Complainantwasdeniedtheopportunitytosubm ither

resumeforapromotion.

2. OnDecember12,2018,Complainantfeltforcedtoresignfrom herposition.

z

OnoraroundApril29,20l9,theAgencysentanemailtoComplainant'spersonalemail

addressallegingsheviolatedhertravelcardwhenemployedwithICE andnotifiedher

thatthiswouldbenotedinherpersonnelrecordtoensurethatotheragencieswouldbe

awareoftheadversefindingshouldsheapplyforFederalemploylnentatalatertime.

FINDINGSOF FACT

2BecauseClaim (2)isamixed-caseclaim,appealrightsaretotheMeritSystem ProtectionBoard(MSPB)notthe

EqualEmploymentOpportunityCommission(li2EOC).BecauseClaim (2)wasnotbifurcatedanddocketedasa

separatecomplaint,instructionsregardingappealrightsforClaim (2)areaddressedinthesectionbelow labeled

tr onclusion.''

Case 1:22-cv-22805-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2022 Page 17 of 29
Duringtherelevanttimeperiod,lCE cmployedComplainantasaM issionSupport

Specialist(M SS),GS-0301-9,locatedinFortMyers,FL.(lFatl4,65,and120-126).

ComplainanthasarecordconsistingoffourpriorEEO complaintsspanningfrom the

years2009-2018underDocketNos.HS-lCE-08399-2009,HS-ICE-00716-20l3,HS1CE-26580-2016,andHS-1CE-0l004-2018.(1Fat251).Complainantindicatedthather

priorEEO complaintscompriseherbasisofrcprisal.(SIFat39and154-155).

3. Duringtherelevanttimeperiod,Complainant'sfirst-linesupervisorwasaSupervisory

DetentionandDeportationOfticer(SDDO-I)(Hispanic,White,male,YOB:1970,no

priorEEO activity).(1Fat66and243-245).

OnM arch 19,20l8throughM arch21,2019,several,nation-widevacancieswere

announcedforthepositionofMissionSupportSpecialist(M SS),GS-0301-9/11,

advertisedunderJobAnnouncementNo.OPM -ERO-10141561-DHA-ABF. The

vacancyannouncem entindicatedthattheposition'sfullperformancelevelwasGS-0301-

l2,andonlythefirst300eligibleapplicantswouldreceivehiringconsideration.(1Fat

104-119and107).

OnM arch 19,2018,ComplainantappliedfortheM SSpositioninquestion, submitting

herresumeandtranscriptsforonlythcpositionlocatedinM iami,FL. Complainant's

submissionindicatedshewaswillingtoacceptthepositionatonlytheGS-0301-11level.

(lFat97-99,120-131,and132-133).

OnM arch20,2018,Complainantsubm ittedam emorandum viaemailattachment

requestinganon-competitivetransfertotheM SSpositionatissueattheGS-0301-11

level.Complainant'smemorandum wassubmittedviaemailthroughherfirst-line

supervisorSDDO-I.(1Fat86-88,143-144.and168).

OnM arch21,2018,SDDO-IconfinmedreceiptofComplainant'semailcorrespondence,

(lFat88,142-143,and246-247)andhefolwardedComplainant'srequesttothe

AssistantFieldOfficeDirector(AFOD-I)(Hispanic,W hite,male,YOB:1955,noprior

EEO activity).(lFat172-173).

8. OnM arch23,2018,AFOD-InotifiedComplainantviaemailthatshecouldnotbe

transferrednon-competitively intoapositionthatisafullperformancelevelhigherthana

positionComplainantpreviouslyheld.3 AFOD-InotifiedComplainantherexperience

andeducation,however,wouldqualifyhertocompeteforthepositionattheGS-0301-11

level,butshewouldneedtoapplyassuch.(lFat183).

9. OnM arch26,2018,ComplainantacknowledgedreceiptofAFOD-I'sM arch23,2018

email.(IFat183).

10.OnMay11,2018,theOfficeofPersonnelM anagement(OPM)Mid-AtlanticService

BranchnotifiedComplainantviaemailthatshewasnotreferredforhiringconsideration

3TherecordindicatesComplainant'shighestpositionheldwasattheGS-9level. (lFatl83).

Case 1:22-cv-22805-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2022 Page 18 of 29
tothehiringofficialsfortheM SSpositionatissuebecauseshewasnotamongthcfirst

300applicantswhoapplied.(1Fatl37-139).

1l.OnJune15,2018,aMissionSupportSpecialist(M SS)(Selectee-l)(Race:Black/African

American;Sex;Female;Color:unknown;YOB:1980,.andnopriorEEO activity)was

competitivelyselectedfortheM SSpositionatissueattheGS-0301-09level.(IFat223-

226,286and288).

12.OnJune15,2018,anM SS(Selectee-z)(Race:Hispanic',Sex;M ale;Color:unknown;

YOB:1973;andnopriorEEO activity)wascompetitivelyselectedandpromotedintothe

MSSpositionatissueattheGS-030l-1llevel.(lFat227-228,286and287).

l3.OnJunel8,2018,ComplainantsentSDDO-1anem ailinquiringintothestatusofher

requestfornon-competitivetransferintotheM SSpositionatissue.(lFat142).

14.OnJune19,2018,SDDO-IrespondedtoComplainant'sJunel8,2018emailnotifying

herthatAFOD-IhadalreadyrespondedtoherrequestonM arch23,20l8andreiterated

thecontentsofAFOD-I'sMarch23,2018email.(1Fat142).

l5.OnNovember14,20l8,aM anagementandProgram Analyst(MPA-I)sentnotitication

tomanagementwithalistofemployeeswhoseGovernmentTravelCards(GTC)have

pastduebalancesand/ordelinquentaccounts.(SIFat323-325).Complainantwas

amongthoselisted.(IFat323).

16.OnoraroundNovember16,2018,anAFOD (AFOD-2)(White,male,TOB:1971,no

priorEEO activity)reportedComplainant'sGTCdelinquencytoICE'SOfficeof

ProfessionalResponsibility(OPR)JointlntakeCenter(JOC)regardingComplainant's

potentialmisuseofherGTC withrespecttoAutomaticTellerMachine(ATM )cash

withdrawals.(SIFat249-250).ICE'SOPR commencedaninvestigationintoAFOD-2's

repùrtofallegedmisconductbyComplainant.(SIFat241-310).

l7.OnoraroundDecember8,2018,Complainantresignedfrom herpositionwithICE. (SIF

at41-50and67-68).

18.OnApril29,2019,ICE'SOPR concludedtheirinvestigation,andwiththeapprovalofthe

FieldOfficeDirector(FOD-1),theActingDeputyFieldOftsceDirector(DFOD-I)sent

ComplainantthettNoticeofAdverseFindingandlntenttoM akePermanentNotationin

Record''regardingComplainant'smisuseofherGTC pursuanttoTitle5j3322,

Voluntaryseparationbeforeresolutionofapersonnelinvestigation.(SIFat201-206,

207-208,220-226,and310).

STANDARD O FREVIEW

A .DisparateTreatm ent

Case 1:22-cv-22805-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2022 Page 19 of 29
Section717ofTitleVIIoftheCivilRightsActof1964(itl-itlcVII'')asamended,42U.S.C.

j2000eetseq.,prohibitsdiscriminationbasedonrace,color,religion,sex,andnationalorigin.

TheAgeDiscriminationinEmploymentActof1967(tADEA''),asamcnded,29U.S.C.j62l

cfseq.,protectsFederalcmployeeswhoare40yearsofageorolderfrom employment

discriminationbasedonage.TitleV11andtheADEA alsoprohibitreprisalorretaliationagainst

participation intheEEO processorforopposinganyunlawfulemploymentpracticescoveredby

thesestatutes.

lntheabsenceofdirectevidenceofdiscrimination, thetripartiteanalysisfirstenunciatedin

McDonnellDouglasCorp.v.Green,41lU.S.792,802(1973),appliestoclaimsof

discriminationallegingdisparatetreatment.O'Connorv.Consol. CoinCaterers,517U.S.308

(1996),.McDonnellDouglas,411U.S.at802.Underthisanalyticalfralnework,thecomplainant

mustfirstestablishaprimafaciecaseofdiscriminationbypresentingfactsreasonablygiving

risetoaninferenceofdiscriminationwhenunexplained'.i.e.,aprohibitedreasonwasafactorin

theadverseemploymentaction.M cDonnellDouglas,411U.S.at802. Oncetherecord

establishesaprimafaciecase,apresumptionarisesthattheemployerunlawfullydiscriminated

againstthecomplainant,andtheburdenshiftstotheemployertûtoarticulatesomelegitimate,

nondiscriminatoryreason''torebuttheprima.jàciecase.Fcx.Dep'tt?fCmty.Affairsv.Burdine,

450U.S.248,253-54(1981).Shouldtheemployermeetthisburdenofproduction,the

complainanttçmustthenhaveanopportunitytoprovebyapreponderanceoftheevidencethat

thelegitimatereasonsofferedbygtheAgencyjwerenotitstruereasons,butwereapretextfor

discrimination.''Burdine,450U .S.at254.Ultimately,theburdenofshowingtheemployer

intentionallydiscriminatedagainstthecomplainantonthebasisofhisorherprotectedstatus

remainsata1ltim eswiththecomplainant.St.M 'tz/:y'sHonorCtr.v.Hicks,509U.S.502,507

(1993).

lnacasewheretheemployerhasarticulatedlegitimate,nondiscriminatoryreasonsforits

actions,thefactfinderneednotdeterminewhetherthecomplainanthasestablishedaprimafacie

caseofdiscrimination.Instead,thefactfindershouldreview theentirerecordtodetermine

whethertherecordsupportsafindingofdiscrim ination.U.S.PostalServ. Bd.t?fGovernorsv.

Aikens,460U.S.711,714-15(1983),.Austinv.Dep'toftheA'tzltv,EEOCAppcalNo.01900068

(Dec.8,1989).Therefore,thisdecisiondoesnotincludeaprimafaciecaseanalysisonthe

disparatetreatmentissueinClaim (1).

B.ConstructiveDischarge

Thecentralquestioninaconstructivedischargecaseiswhethertheemployer, throughits

unlawfuldiscriminatorybehavior,madetheemployee'sworkingconditionssodifficultthatany

reasonableperson intheemployee'spositionwouldfeelcompelledtoresign.Carmon-coleman

v.Dep'tt?fDef,EEOCAppealNo.07A00003(Apr.17,2002).TheEEOChasadoptedathreeprongedtestforestablishingaconstructivedischarge.Complainantmustshow that:(1)a

reasonablepersoninComplainant'spositionwouldhavefoundtheworkingconditions

intolerable;(2)conductwhichconstitutedprohibiteddiscriminatorytreatmentcreatcdthe

intolerableworkingconditions',and(3)Complainant'sinvoluntaryresignationresultedfrom

intolerableworkingconditions.Walchv.Dep'toflustice,EEOCRequestNo.05940688(Apr.

l3,1995).

Case 1:22-cv-22805-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2022 Page 20 of 29
A NALYSIS

A.Prim aFacieCaseAnalysis

Complainantfailedtoestablishaprimafacieclaim ofdiscriminationregardingherallegationsof

disparatetreatmentinClaim (3).InMcDonnellDouglas,thecoul'tnotedthattheelementsofa

primafaciecomplaintmustnecessarilyvarydependingontheparticularfactsofeachspecific

case.1d.at802,n.13.Here,Complainantmayestablishaprimafaciecomplaintbyshowing

thatsheisamemberofaprotectedclassandwassubjectedtoanadverseemploymentactionby

thcagency,whileotherssim ilarlysituated,butnotoftheprotectedclass,weredissimilarly

treated.SeeMcDonaldv.SantaFeTrailTransportationCo.,427U.S.273(1976).

Furthermore,theEEOC hasconsistentlyheldthatinorderforcomparativeemployeestobe

consideredsimilarlysituated,allrelevantaspectsoftheComplainant'ssituationmustbenearly

identicaltothoseofacomparativeemployee.SeePowellp.U.S.PostalService,EEOC No.

01911979(November25,1991).,O'Nealv.U.S.PostalSetwice,EEOC No.05910490(Ju1y23,

1991).,seealsoMitchellv.ToledoHospital,964F.2d577(6thCir.1992).

W ithrespecttoClaim (3),Complainantfailedtoidentifyanysimilarlysituatedindividuals

treatedmorefavorablyundersubstantiallysimilarcircumstances.(SIFat53-54).Therefore,

Complainanthasfailedtoestablishaprimafacieclaim ofdisparatetreatmentwithrespectto

Claim (3).However,forthesakeofargument,Claim (3)willbeaddressedinthisdecision.

B.DisparateTreatm ent

M anagementprovidedlegitimatenon-discriminatoryreasonsforClaims(1)and(3).

M anagem ent'sReasons

Claim (l) DeniedOpportunityforPromotion

TheselectionofficialfortheM SSpositionatissue,aDFOD (DFOD-2),deniedsubjecting

ComplainanttodiscriminationorreprisalandstatedhehadnoknowledgeofComplainant'sage

orpriorEEO activity.(IFat200and206-207,.SlFat159-160and171).Hefurtherexplained

thatthereasonComplainantwasnotgivenhiringconsiderationfortheM SSpositionatissuewas

becauseshewasneitherlistedontheCertiticateofEligibleCandidates(CERT)nordidhe

çireceivearequestfrom (ComplainantjforconsiderationunderDirectHiringAuthority.''(1Fat

201and204,.S1Fat159-160and17l;seealsoCERTatIF223-228).DFOD-2contendedthat

theindividualsselectedforthepositionatissue(i.e.,Selectee-landSelectee-z):eitherapplied

directlytothevacancyorrequestedcompetitiveconsiderationunderDirectHiringAuthority

(DHAI;werelistedontheCERT;weregivencompetitiveconsideration;andweredeemedthe

bestqualifiedamongthecandidateslistedontheCERTbasedontheGlkésuméReview and

Structuredlnteniew Process.''(1Fat201-205and184-194,*seealsoCandidateScoringMatrix

atIF229-230).DFOD-2alsoindicatedthathewasneitherinvolvedinnorgavefavorable

preference,guidance,oradvicetoSelectee-z.(SIFatl74-179).

6

Case 1:22-cv-22805-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2022 Page 21 of 29
AFOD-IdeniedsubjectingComplainanttodiscriminationandreprisalandcontendedthathe

wasunawareofherage.(lFatl73and179-180).AFOD-Iexplainedthatthereason

ComplainantwasnotconsideredforthcM SSpositionatissuewasbecauseshewasnotlistedon

theCERT.(lFat174).However,AFOD-Iaffirmedthat,onMarch20,2018,Complainant

submittedarequestforNon-competitiveTransferthroughhersupervisor,SDDO-1,butshedid

notmeetthequalificationsforherrequest(i.e.,timeingradetoqualifyforaNon-competitive

TransferintoaGS-I1position).(IFat174and176.,seealsoRequestforNon-competitive

TransferandEmailCorrespondenceatIF86and183).4W ithrespecttotheindividualsselected

fortheM SSpositionatissue,AFOD-Iaverredthattheseindividuals(i.e.,Selectee-land

Selectee-z)appliedforcompetitiveconsideration,werelistedontheCERT,andweredetermined

tobethebestqualifiedbythelnterview PanelandSelectingOfficial.(lFat176-177andl84-

194,.seealsoCandidateScoringMatrixatIF229-230).

SDDO-IdeniedsubjectingComplainanttodiscriminationandreprisalandcontendedthathe

wasunawareofherpriorEEO activity.(IFat245and247).SDDO-Iaffirmedthathereceived

andforwardedComplainant'srequestforanon-competitivetransferintotheM SSpositionat

issueattheGS-I1gradelevelbutsubsequentlynotifiedherthatshewasnoteligibleasoriginally

explainedtoherbyAFOD-IinhisM arch23,2018email.(1Fat245-247,.SlFatl83-184,.see

alsoEmailCorrespondenceatIF91-92and183).

Claim (y- AdverseFindingLeter

AFOD-2deniedsubjectingComplainanttodiscriminationandreprisalcitingthathewasalso

unawareofherageorEEO activity.(SIFat313and320).AFOD-2explainedthat,

Complainant'sGTC wasfoundtohaveanoutstandingbalance,andafterfurtherreview ofher

GTC account,theyfoundthreeindependentcashwithdrawalsonSeptember10,11,and l3,20l8

fortheamountsof$803.50,$503.00,and$803.50,respectively,totaling$2,110.00ofcash

withdrawals.(SIFat315-316).AFOD-2explained:

DHS Cash W ithdrawalPolicy limits the A'l-M /tellertransaction limits to $400.00 per

seven-day periodfordomestictravel. Thepolicy furtherexplainsthatcash withdrawals

shouldonlybeobtainedwhentravelexpensescannotbepaidforwiththetravelcardand

arelimited to mealsand incidentalexpenses. A review ofthecomplainant'screditcard

statementrevealsthatherexpenses...wereinfactpaidforwithhergovenzmentcreditcard

sotherewasnow adiscrepancyastowhatthethreeindependentcashwithdrawalstotaling

$2,110.00wereutilizedforifinfact,theywerenotutilizedforapprovedofficialtravel.

(IFat316*,seealsoGTCATM WithdrawalPolicyatSlF326-328).

AFOD-2indicatedthat,becausetheincidentinvolvedthepotentialmisuseofaGTC,ûwhich

fallswithinICE'STableofPenalty's(H7)-Usinggovernmentsponsoredtravelcardforother

thanofficialtravel,''hewasobligatedtoreportpotentialcorruptionormisconducttoOPR JIC.

(SIFat317).

4AFOD-I'sexplanationemailtoComplainantexplainedthatshedidnotqualifyforanon-competitivetransfertoa

positionwithahighergradethanshepreviouslyheld.

Case 1:22-cv-22805-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2022 Page 22 of 29
FOD-IdeniedsubjectingComplainanttodiscriminationorreprisalandaffinnedhcwasthe

decidingofficialforClaim (3).(SIFat220and226).FOD-Iindicatedthat,aftercompletingits

investigation,OPR foundComplainanthadmisusedherGTC inviolationofpolicy. (SIFat221;

seealsoOPRlnvestigationRecordatSlF241-305).FOD-IindicatedthatheinstructedDFOD1tosendComplainantthenoticeatissucitinaccordancewithTitle5oftheU.S.Code,Section

3322,thatanadversefindingwasmadewithrespecttoherasaresultofapersonnel

investigationthatwasnotresolvedatthctimeofherresignationfrom lCE.''(SIFat221-222,.

seealsoNoticeofAdverseFindingLetteratS1C 306-307).

PretextA nalysis

Oncem anagem entprovidesalegitimate,nondiscriminatoryreasonforitsactions, theburden

shiftstothecomplainanttoshow management'sprofferedreasonswerepretextual. Todothis,a

complainantmustprovideevidencetendingtoprovemanagem ent'sreasonsarefactually

baseless,werenottheactualmotivationforitsdecisions,orwereinsufficienttom otivateits

actions.Balderstonv.FairbanksM orseEngineDiv, 328F.3d309,323(7thCir.2003).

W ithrespecttoClaim (1),althoughComplainantclaimedthatherrace,sex,age,andpriorEEO

activitywerethereasonsfortheallegedtreatm ent,Complainantfailedtoprovideevidenceor

persuasiveargumentthatwouldleadtoaninferenceofdiscrim inatoly motiveonthepartof

management.(IFat65-76and86-148,*SlFat39--41).Instead,therecordshowsthat

ComplainantappliedfortheMSSpositionatissue,(IFat139)butshewasnotreferredtohiring

officialsforconsiderationnorlistedontheCERT becauseherapplicationfelloutsideofthe

maximum numberofapplicationsbeingacceptedfortheM SSpositionatissue(i.e.,300

applications).(lFatl07and137-139).Furthennore,therecorddoesnotsuppol'tComplainant's

assertionthatAFOD-Ideniedhertheopportunityforpromotionconsideration, astherecord

demonstratesthatComplainantrequestedanon-competitivetransferintotheM SSpositionat

issueattheGS-Ilgradelevel,(1Fat86-87)wherebyAFOD-Iimmediatelynotified

Complainantthatsucharequestwerenotpossiblebecauseshecouldnottransferintoaposition

atahighergradelevelthanshehaseverheld(i.e.,transferfrom aGS-09toaGS-I1position),

butheadvisedherthatshewouldneedtoapplyforcompetitiveconsiderationbecauseshedid

meetthetime-in-gradeandeducationrequirementsforcompetitivepromotionconsideration.(lF

at183).TherecordshowsthatComplainantconfinnedreceiptofAFOD-l'sexplanation,(IFat

183)howevertherecordcontainsnoevidencedemonstratingthatComplainantresubmitedher

requestaskingforcompetitiveconsiderationunderDHA nordoesComplainantmakeanysuch

assertion.(IFat65-76and86-148,.SIFat39-41).Inaddition,therecordclearlyshowsthat

Complainant'sresponsetoAFOD-Ididnotrequestanyadditionalguidancc(i.e.,responding

onlywith6%k'')(1Fat183)andAFOD-I'sMarch23,2018emailclearlyadvisedComplainant

thereasonwhytheywereunabletononcompetitivelytransferherintoaGS-I1position.

Furthennore,Complainanthasfailedtoidcntifya:comparatortreatcdmorefavorablyunder

substantiallysimilarcircumstances.AlthoughComplainantclaimedthatSelectee-land

Selectee-zweretreatedmorefavorably,(1Fat71-72)therecorddoesnotsupporttheconclusion

thattheircircum stancesweresubstantiallysimilar. lnstead,therecordshowsthatSelectee-l:

appliedfortheM SSpositionatissue;wasamongthefirst300applicants;waslistedamongthc

qualifiedcandidatesontheCERT;andwascompetitivelypromotedtotheM SSpositionatissue

Case 1:22-cv-22805-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2022 Page 23 of 29
attheGS-09level.(IFat223-226,229-230,and288.,SlF390-402).W ithrespecttoSelectee2,therecordindicatesthatSelectee-z:requestedcolnpetitiveconsiderationunderDHA;was

listedontheCERT;waslistedamongthequalitiedcandidatesontheCERT;andwas

competitivelypromotedtotheM SSpositionatissueattheGS-I1level.(lFat178,191,203,

217,227-230,and287.,S1F 119-123,382-389,and506-519).Hence,ascomparedto

Complainant'scircum stancediscussedatlengthabove,neitherSelectee-lnorSelectee-zwerein

substantiallysimilarcircumstances,andComplainanthasfailedtoprovideevidenceora '

persuasiveargumenttothecontrary.(IFat65-76and86-148,.S1Fat39-4l).Moreover,the

recordshowsthatSelectee-1isthesameraceandsexasComplainant,(lFat286and227-228)

whichundenninesComplainant'sclaimsofraceandsexdiscrimination, andComplainantfailed

toidentifyanyindividualwhonon-competitivelytransferredintotheM SSpositionatissueat

highergradelevelthantheypreviouslyheld.(1Fat65-76and86-148,.SlFat39-W1).

W ithrespecttoClaim (3),althoughComplainantclaimedthisincidentwasbecauseofher

protectedbases,Complainantfailedtoprovideevidenceorapersuasiveargumentthatwould

underminemanagement'slegitimatenon-discrim inatoryreasonsorothelw iseleadtoan

inferenceofdiscriminatoryorretaliatorymotive. (SIFat50-61,.seealsoLeterofResignationat

SlF67-68).lnstead,therecorddemonstratesthatComplainantmisusedherGTC inviolationof

agencypolicyandwassenttherequirednoticepursuanttoTitle5j3322(i.e.,Voluntary

separationbeforeresolutionofpersonnelinvestigation),(SIFat220-227,241-305,and310)

whichiswhyshereceivednotieeoftheirfindingsafterherresignation. Furthermore,with

respecttoComplainant'sallegationofreprisal,theEEOC hasheldthatanagencyisnotrequired

torefrainfrom non-discriminatorypersonnelactionsitwouldotherwisetakesimplybecausethe

employeehasengagedinEEO activity.SeeSotomayerv.Dep'tt?ftheArmy,EEOCAppealNo.

01A43440(M ayl7,2006)(citingCarterv.Dep'tofEducation,EEOCAppealNo.01842314

(Aug.25,1986)),.seealsoEEOC EnforcementGuidanceonRetaliationandRelatedlssues,

ExamplesofFactsThatMayDefeataClaim ofRetaliationj2(c),at4(August25,2016).Here,

theweightoftherecorddoesnotsuppol'ttheconclusionthatComplainant'sprotectedactivity

wasthecauseofClaim (3)buthermisuseofherGTC inviolationofagencypolicy.(SIFat

220-227,and241-310,and312-320).M oreover,Complainantfailedtoidentifyany

comparatorstreatedmorefavorablyundersubstantiallysimilarcircumstancesthatwouldlendto

aninferenceofretaliatorymotiveonthepartofmanagement. (SIFat53-55).

Therefore,basedontheforegoing,Complainantfailedtoprovebyapreponderanceofthe

evidencem anagement'slegitimate,nondiscriminatoly reasonwasapretextfordiscrimination

withregardtoClaims(1)and(3).

C.ConstructiveDischarge

W hendeterm iningwhetheranindividualwasconstnlctivelydischarged,thecentralquestionis

whethertheemployer,throughitsunlawfuldiscriminatorybehavior,madetheemployee's

workingconditionssointolerablethatanyreasonablepersonintheemployee'spositionwould

feelcompelledtoresign.lntheinstantcomplaint,Complainant'sclaim sfailtomeetEEOC'S

three-prongtestnecessarytoestablishaconstructivedischarge:(1)areasonablepersonin

Complainant'spositionwouldhavefoundtheworkingconditionsintolerable;(2)conductwhich

constitutedprohibiteddiscriminatorytreatmentcreatedtheintolerableworkingconditions', and

Case 1:22-cv-22805-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2022 Page 24 of 29
(3)Complainant'sinvoluntaryresignationresultedfrom intolerableworkingconditions.Walch

v.Dep't(?fJustice,EEOCRequestNo.05940688(Apr.13,1995).

W ithrespecttothesecondprongofthetest,therecorddoesnotleadtotheconclusionthat

Complainantwassubjectedtoconductthatconstitutedprohibiteddiscriminatorytreatmentprior

toherresignation.AlthoughComplainantclaimedthatshefeltforcedtoresignbecauseshewas

notselectedfortheM SSpositionatissueinconjunctionwithhersubsequentdiscomforthaving

toworkwithandtrainbothSelectee-1andSelectee-zthereafter,(SIFat41-50,*seealsoLetert?f

ResignationatSlF67-68)Complainantfailedtoprovebyapreponderanceoftheevidencethat

managementsubjectedhertodiscriminatoryconductallegedinClaim (1),asdiscussedatlength

above.BecauseComplainantisunabletoestablishthatshewassubjectedtoprohibited

discriminatoryconduct,Complainantisalsounabletoestablishthefirstandthirdprongsof

EEOC'Sthree-prongtest.Therefore,basedontheweightoftheavailablerecord,Complainant

hasfailedtodemonstratethatlCE engagedinconductthatconstitutedunlawfuldiscriminatory

treatmentthatcreatedintolerableworkingconditionsresultinginherrcsignation.

CONCLUSION

Baseduponthefullevidentiaryrecord,CRCL concludesComplainantfailedtoprovethat1CE

discriminatedagainsther.SinceComplainantisnottheprevailingparty, sheisnotentitledto

paymentofattorney'sfees,costs,orcompensatorydamages,andnocorrectiveactionisrequired.

Pursuantto29C.F.R.jj16l4.110(b)and1614.302(d)(3),Complainanthasthefollowingappeal

rights:

W ithrespecttoClaims(1)and(31,anoticeisattachedtothisDecision informingComplainant

oftherighttoappealthisDecisiontotheEqualEmploymentOpportunityCommission(EEOC)

ortofileacivilactioninFederalDistrictCoul't.Also,acopyofEEOC Form 573isattachedfor

Complainant'ssubmissiontotheEEOC'SOfticeofFederalOperations,shouldComplainant

decidetofileanappealwithrespecttoClaims(1)and(3).

W ithrespecttoClaim (2à,aseparatenoticeisattachedtothisDecisioninformingComplainant

oftherighttoappealthisDecisiontotheU.S.MeritSystemsProtectionBoard(M SPB)ortotile

acivilaction inFederalDistrictCourt.Also, acopyofM SPB Fonn l85isattachedfor

Complainant'ssubmissiontoM SPB'SAtlantaRegionalOffice,shouldComplainantdecideto

fileanappealwithrespecttoClaim (2).

A meliap mopdo6

ForVeronicaVenture

DeputyOfûcer,OfficeforCivilRightsandCivilLibcrties

DirectorforEEO & Diversity

DepartmentofHomelandSecurity

J.R.W .

M av 20.2022

Date

10

Case 1:22-cv-22805-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2022 Page 25 of 29
NO TICE OF A PPEAL RIGH TS

YouhavetherighttoappealtotheEqualEmploymentOpportunityCommission(EEOC)ortofileacivilaction

inanappropriateUnitedStatesDistrictCourt.

Al1timeperiodsaregivenincalendardays.lfatimeperiodexpiresonaSaturday,SundayorFederalholiday,

youmayfileonthenextbusinessday.lfanattorneyrepresentsyou,thetimeperiodsbegintonznfrom thedate

thatyourattorneyreceivesthisdecision.

FILING AN APPEAL W ITH EEOC

YouhavetherighttoappealthisdecisiontoEEOC within30daysofthedayyoureceivethisfinaldecision.

Youhavetherighttosubmitanoptionalbrieforstatementwithin30daysofthedateyoutiletheappeal.File

yourappeal,andanysubsequentsupportingstatementorbrief,byaccessingEEOC'Spublicportal,at

www.ptlblicportal.eeoc.qyoN'.W henyouf5leyourappealthroughtheEEOC'Spublicportal,pleasebesureto

selecttheappropriateDHSComponent.

Ifyouareunabletoaccessthepublicportal,youm aysendtheappealbymailaddressedto:

U.S.EqualEmploymentOpportunityCom m ission

O fficeofFederalO perations

P.O .Box77960

W ashington,DC 20013

Orbypersonaldelively to:

U .S.EqualEm ploym entOpportunityC om m ission

OfficeofFederalOperations

131M Street,NE

Suite5SW 12G

W ashington,DC 20507

Orbyfacsimileto(202)663-7022.

AtthesametimeyoufileanappealwithEEOC,youmustalsosendacopyofyourappeal,andanysupporting

statementorbrief,to:

Chief

Laborand Em ploym entLaw D ivision

U.S.lm migrationand Custom sEnforcem ent

OfficeofthePrincipalLegalAdvisor

50012thStreet,NW

W ashington,DC 20024

Andto:

AssistantDirector,OfficeofDiversityand CivilRights

U.S.Im migrationand Custom sEnforcem ent

801IStreetNW ,Suite8000,M S5010

W ashington,DC 20536-5010

Andto:

Case 1:22-cv-22805-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2022 Page 26 of 29
OfficeforCivilRightsandCivilLiberties

DepartmentofHomelandSecurity

M S0191

2707M artinLutherKingJrAveSE

W ashington,DC 20528-0191

InyourappealtoEEOC,youmuststatethedateandmethod(forexample,bycertifiedmailorhanddelivery)

bywhichacopyoftheappealwassenttotheChiefoftheLaborandEmploymentLaw Division,Officeofthe

PrincipalLegalAdvisor,U.S.lmmigrationandCustomsEnforcement,andtotheChiefDiversityOfficer,U.S.

lm migrationandCustomsEnforcement. YoushouldusetheattachedEEOC Form 573,Noticeof

Appeal/petition,totileyourappeal.EEOC willdismissyourappealifyoudonotfileitwithinthetimelimits.

FILIN G A CIVIL AC TIO N

YoualsohavetherighttotileacivilactioninanappropriateUnitedStatesDistrictCourtwithin90daysafter

youreceivethisfinaldecisionifyoudonotappealtoEEOC,orwithin90daysafterreceiptofEEOC'Sfinal

decisiononappeal.Youmayalsofileacivilactionafter180daysfrom thedateoffilinganappealwithEEOC

iftherehasbeennofinaldecisionbyEEOC.

lfyourclaim isbasedonagediscrimination,thetimelimitsnotedabovemaynotbeapplicabletoyou,

especiallyifyouarefilingthiscivilactionaftergivingEEOC notlessthan30days'noticeofyourintenttofile

suchanaction.Accordingly,youshouldconsultanattorneyifyoudesirefurtherguidanceregardingthe

timelinessofyourcase.

Youmustalsocomplywiththefollowinginstructions:

(1)YoumustnameAlejandroN.M ayorkas,Secretary,DepartmentofHomelandSecurity,asthedefendant.

Failuretoprovidehisnameandofficialtitlem ayresultindismissalofyourcase.

(2)lfyoudecidetot5leacivilactionandifyoudonothave,orcannotafford,theservicesofanatorney,you

mayrequestthattheCourtappointanattorneytorepresentyouandthattheCoul'tpermityoutofiletheaction

withoutpaymentoffees,costs,orothersecurity.Thegrantordenialoftherequestiswithinthesolediscretion

oftheCourt.Filinjarequestforanatorneydoesnotextendthetimeinwhichtot5leacivilaction.Boththe

requestandthecivllactionmustbefiledwithin90daysofthedateyoureceivetheagencyorEEOC final

decision.

Pleasenotethatdueto thecurrentpandem icand nationalhealth em ergency,som eDistrictCourts

m ayhavechangedtheirproceduresforhow tofileacivilaction.PleaseIook atthespecific

instructionsprovidedbytheDistrictCourtinthejurisdictioninwhichyouIiveforhow tofileacivil

action.

Case 1:22-cv-22805-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2022 Page 27 of 29
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SO UTH ERN DISTRICT OF FLO RIDA

M ARCIA TAYLOR,

Plaintiff,

ALEJANDRO N.M AYORKAS,

SECRETARY,U.S.DEPARTM ENT OF

HOM ELAND SECURITY.

JURY TRIAL DEM ANDED

Defendant.

COM PLAINT

1,M ARCIA TAYLOR,plaintiff,intheabovestyledcause,suedefendantls)ALEJANDRO N.

M AYORK AS,SECRETARY,U.S.DEPARTM ENT O F HOM ELAND SECURITY.

Date:August3l.2022 Respectfullysubmitted,

h

'

Q

M arciaTaylor,ProSe

l213 SW 34thTerrace

CapeCoral,FL 333914

)ï-'1-C!!'..ç..i.-k1-t.#)-#-)-('1-1...'-t:.'/..).g!-1A?si-to.çJ).1n

(954)394-7448

Case 1:22-cv-22805-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2022 Page 28 of 29
CertificateofService

lhereby certifythatatrueandcorrectcopyoftheforegoingwasservedby

onallcounselorpartiesofrecordontheServiceListedbelow.

SignatureofFiler

SERVICE LIST

SecretaryAlejandroN.Mayorkas

U.S.DepartmentofHomeland Security

245M urryLane,SW

W ashington,D.C.20528-0075

Case 1:22-cv-22805-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2022 Page 29 of 29