Opinion ID: 2817754
Heading Depth: 6
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Fraud Prevention Award

Text: Ms. Bandi’s evidence about her fraud prevention award does not create a material factual dispute on pretext for two reasons. First, the evidence does not show that Mr. Griffin suppressed the award. Second, the absence of an award on her SSA-45 did not affect Mr. Griffin’s promotion decision because he did not rely on -7- Mr. Gaines’s receipt of an anti-fraud award3 and Ms. Bandi’s lack of an award as a reason for his decision. In August 2012, Mr. Griffin received an email regarding Ms. Bandi’s help on a fraud case that resulted in a $73,064.30 judgment in favor of the SSA. Mr. Griffin forwarded the email to the other managers in the office and stated “FYI – I’ll submit an anti-fraud award next week and I’ll read the email in the next staff meeting.” Aplt. App. at 307. Ms. Bandi stated in her affidavit that she did not learn of the nomination until November 2012 or later, after a supervisor mentioned it to her. As a result, she was not able to include it on her SSA-45. When asked about the anti-fraud award in his deposition, Mr. Griffin testified he does not recall what he did about it, but if he said in the email he was going to submit the award to the regional office and announce it at a staff meeting, then he would have done so. He also explained that the regional office issues the award and he does not follow up on the awards. Aplt. App. at 232-37. Although Mr. Griffin may not have submitted the award nomination to the regional office or announced it at a staff meeting, the evidence does not show Mr. Griffin suppressed the award. He emailed the other managers in the office informing them of his intention to nominate Ms. Bandi for the award. More importantly, the receipt or non-receipt of an anti-fraud award did not affect Mr. Griffin’s selection decision. In his declaration, the only mention of awards 3 Mr. Gaines’s SSA-45 reflects that he received an anti-fraud award in March 2012 after he helped the SSA obtain a $53,000 judgment in its favor. -8- and the differences between the two candidates is that Ms. Bandi only listed the amount of money she received for each of her awards and failed to explain what she did to earn them, while Mr. Gaines described exactly what he did to earn his awards. Because the anti-fraud award was not part of Mr. Griffin’s stated legitimate reason for his selection decision, any factual dispute regarding Mr. Griffin’s conduct in submitting or following up on the award nomination is not material to pretext.