Hannon v. Chater
Decision Date | 26 May 1995 |
Docket Number | Civ. No. C 94-20351 EAI. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of California |
Parties | T. Patrick HANNON, Plaintiff, v. Shirley CHATER, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, Defendant. |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
T. Patrick Hannon, Campbell, CA, plaintiff, in pro. per.
Lance Burrow, Mitchell, Stock & Burrow, San Jose, CA, for plaintiff.
Michael J. Yamaguchi, U.S. Atty., San Francisco, CA, William F. Murphy, Asst. U.S. Atty., San Jose, CA, for defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT
This is an employment discrimination lawsuit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. ("Title VII"). Plaintiff T. Patrick Hannon1 complains that he was passed over for an administrative law judge ("ALJ") position in the Social Security Administration ("SSA") because he is a white male.
Presently before the Court are the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment, and Hannon's motion for leave to amend his Complaint so as to assert a claim for violation of the Administrative Procedures Act ("APA"), 5 U.S.C. § 701 et seq. Having considered all matters of record,2 the cross-motions for summary judgment are granted in part and denied in part, and Hannon's motion for leave to amend is denied.
Plaintiff Hannon is a white male3 who sought an administrative law judge position with the SSA.4 In March 1993 the Office of Hearing and Appeals ("OHA"), within the SSA, submitted a request for ALJ candidates to the Office of Personnel Management ("OPM").5 OPM produced a list of 135 ALJ candidates, designated as "Amended Certificate AJ-93-05".6 By regulation, in filling a given ALJ position, OHA must select from the top three candidates on the OPM list for each such position.7 After an individual listed on an OPM certificate is passed over for three ALJ positions, the applicant is not eligible to be considered for another ALJ position.8 Hannon was ranked, or "rated" in the Government's terminology, 48th of the 135 candidates considered by OHA for ALJ positions nation-wide; Hannon's aggregate score was 88.75, compared with a top score of 97.92 (rated 1/135) and a bottom score of 85.94 (rated 135/135).9 The ratings broadly comprise four components:
"1 a supplemental qualification statement where the applicant describes his or her experience, 2 a written demonstration exercise where the applicant analyzes a case, 3 ... a reference check that's sent out to people familiar with the applicant's work, and 4 ... a panel interview with a judge and an attorney and an OPM official usually moderates that panel."10
The criteria for OPM's ratings are not otherwise established by the parties.11
Hannon sought a position in California, within which ALJ positions were available in Downey, Los Angeles, Oakland, Pasadena, San Bernadino, San Jose, and San Rafael.12 Consistent with the regulations, and within OPM's discretion, Hannon was considered for three positions: (1) position seven in Los Angeles, for which he was the second-rated candidate; (2) position twelve in Los Angeles, for which he was the top-rated candidate; and (3) position sixteen in San Bernadino, for which he was the second-rated candidate.13
In or about June 1993, OHA announced its selections. Hannon was not selected for any of these three positions.14 "Higher-rated" white males were chosen for positions number seven and sixteen.15 A lower-rated white female, who scored 88.48 (rated 54/135), was chosen for position number twelve in Los Angeles.16 Jose Anglada, OHA's Deputy Chief ALJ, attests that he recommended the female candidate for selection because of her superior qualifications:
17
The unstated implication is that these qualities were not measured in her "rating", which, as noted, fell below Hannon's top rating.18 Indeed, Anglada concedes in his declaration:
19
The female applicant declined the offer of position twelve in Los Angeles, and the OHA, within its discretion, "did not choose anyone else for that position from Certificate AJ-93-05".20
In September 1988, the OHA adopted an "Affirmative Employment Program Plan" for recruiting minority and women employees, including ALJs.21 There is no evidence that OHA's Affirmative Action Plan, a sixty-five page written document, was implemented to remedy past discrimination against women or minorities.22 According to the plan, however, an "analysis" of the OHA's workforce pertinently revealed a "manifest imbalance" disfavoring white and black females among OHA's "professional" employees.23 Further, the analysis showed a "conspicuous absence" of white, black, Asian and American Indian females and Asian males among the ALJ corps.24
The Affirmative Action Plan states its "objective" to increase over a five-year period the numbers of black, Asian and American Indian women, and Asian men, who are ALJs by varying specified percentages.25 The plan was amended in 1990 to provide for an objective of increasing the percentage of white women by five percent over the ensuing three years.26 The plan also indicates a "desire" to increase the "low application rate for all minority and female EEO groups for the position of Administrative Law Judge".27 Finally, in its "program evaluation", the Affirmative Action Plan concludes:
28
The Affirmative Action Plan lacks an express termination date, and it is not certain whether it remained in effect in 1993.29 The Government admits, however, that the OHA did not rely on the Affirmative Action Plan in bypassing Hannon for ALJ position twelve in favor of a female candidate.30
On August 13, 1993, Hannon filed an informal complaint with OHA's Equal Employment Opportunity ("EEO") counselor.31 "The informal complaint failed to redress plaintiff's grievances",32 and so, on November 20, 1993, Hannon filed a formal administrative complaint with the Department of Health and Human Services ("HHS").33 The administrative complaint avers, inter alia, that Hannon was discriminated against on the basis of gender:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Shea v. Kerry
...it with a similar affirmative action plan. Def.'s SMF ¶ 17; Pl.'s SMF Resp. 12 (admitting Def.'s SMF ¶ 17). Cf. Hannon v. Chater, 887 F.Supp. 1303, 1318 (N.D.Cal.1995) (plaintiff cannot meet burden of showing plan was not temporary when program, in fact, ended). While courts may require def......
-
Williams v. Raytheon Co., Civil Action No. 97-10925-RGS.
...replaced by an employee of the same gender, however, does not necessarily defeat his sex discrimination claim. See Hannon v. Chater, 887 F.Supp. 1303, 1313 (N.D.Cal.1995) ("Evidence that person hired is of the same sex or race as the plaintiff `is extremely helpful to the defendant's rebutt......
-
Harris v. Shelby County Bd. of Educ.
...Chicago, 3 F.3d 1113, 1118 n. 2 (7th Cir.1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1116, 114 S.Ct. 1065, 127 L.Ed.2d 385 (1994); Hannon v. Chater, 887 F.Supp. 1303, 1314 (N.D.Cal.1995). 5 Nonetheless, under Title VII as amended, a defendant can limit its liability by proving that it would have made the......
-
Shea v. Kerry
......Def.'s SMF ¶ 17; Pl.'s SMF Resp. 12 (admitting Def.'s SMF ¶ 17). Cf. Hannon v. Chater, 887 F. Supp. 1303, 1318 (N.D. Cal. 1995) (plaintiff cannot meet burden of showing plan was not temporary when program, in fact, ended). ......