EEOC Appeal 2020000021

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Scarlet G,1
Complainant,
v.
William P. Barr,
Attorney General,
Department of Justice
(Federal Bureau of Prisons),
Agency.
Appeal No. 2020000021
Hearing No. 430-2019-00048X
Agency No. BOP-2018-0463
DECISION
On September 17, 2019, Complainant filed an appeal, pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.403(a), from
the Agency’s August 15, 2019 final order concerning his equal employment opportunity (EEO)
complaint alleging 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 worked as a Senior Officer Specialist at the Agency’s
Federal Medical Center in Butner, North Carolina (FMC Butner).
On April 2, 2018, Complainant filed the instant formal complaint. Complainant claimed that the
Agency discriminated against him based on race (African-American), sex (male), and in reprisal
for prior EEO activity when the computer in the Mental Health Camera room (a correctional post)
would boot up, the screen would display BIOS computer terminology he found offensive.
Specifically, during the BOIS boot sequence, the computer would display “IDE Channel 4 Master:
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.

2020000021	2
None; IDE Channel 4 Slave.” This computer terminology would appear on the screen during the
BIOS boot-up for not more than two seconds.2
After its investigation into the formal complaint, the Agency provided Complainant with a copy
of the report of investigation and notice of right to request a hearing before an Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) Administrative Judge (AJ). Complainant timely
requested a hearing. The Agency submitted a motion for a decision without a hearing. The AJ
subsequently issued a decision by summary judgment in favor of the Agency.
The AJ noted that from November 2018 through February 6, 2018, Complainant occasionally
worked as the Mental Health Camera Room officer which required him to monitor inmates via a
computer in the Computer Monitoring Room. 	The Agency attested that the attached video file
shows, when the Mental Health Camera Room computer boots up, the BOIS data on the screen
displayed the following characters for approximately two seconds:
IDE Channel 0 Master: Hitachi HDS721025CLA382JP10A3EA
IDE Channel 3 Master: HL-DT-ST- DVDRAM GH22NS50 TN03
IDE Channel 4 Master: None
IDE Channel 4 Slave: None
IDE Channel 5 Master: None
IDE Channel 5 Slave: None
IDE Channel 6 Master: None
IDE Channel 6 Slave: None
IDE Channel 7 Master: None
IDE Channel 9 Master: None
IDE Channel 9 Slave: None
The Agency attested that the video of BOIS sequence lasts from approximately 0:07 until
approximately 0:09 seconds.
A Captain (unknown race), also the Chief of Correctional Services, stated that around February
2017, Complainant brought to his attention that the monitor displayed the words “Master” and
“Slave” on the computer screen when it rebooted and told him he found the words offensive. The
Captain stated that he then contacted Computer Services and asked them if they could make it to
where when the computers reboot that there’s nothing on the screen. They were able to do so, so
Computer Services was able to go through on all of our computer systems and make sure that no
terminology pops up during a reboot.”
2 BOIS is an abbreviation for “basic input/output system,” which is a program that a personal
computer’s microprocessor uses to get the computer system started after it is turned on.

2020000021	3
The Computer Services Manager explained that before viewing the information on the monitors,
he contacted the vendor that supplied the system. He explained that, “Master/Slave is a mode of
communication where one device or process has unidirectional control over one or more devices.
This terminology is used in a variety of industries such as the following: motor controls, hydraulic
and 	pneumatic systems, 	database designs, 	and 	peripherals 	in 	computer 	systems, 	railway
locomotive configurations and even time with clocks (including network clocks). This is industry
standard terminology and has been around for over 50 years.” The Computer Services Manager
attested that the words could not be removed “as these are hard coded in the hardware/system
provided by the manufacturer.” However, he said he did reconfigure the system so the words did
not display during reboots.
The AJ stated that a review of the record, there was no evidence to support that Complainant was
subjected to unlawful discrimination and/or hostile work environment as alleged. 	Despite his
allegations, the AJ noted that Complainant failed “to show that the computer language at issue was
anything more than standard computer technology used during the system boot up sequence. It
does not appear that the Agency and/or the Agency computer was intentional programmed to only
direct the language at issue to Complainant, as anyone who booted up the computer would have
seen the same language.”
The Agency issued its final order adopting the AJ’s finding that Complainant failed to prove
discrimination as alleged. 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 has 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.

2020000021	4
To prove his harassment claim, Complainant must establish that he was subjected to conduct that
was either so severe or so pervasive that a “reasonable person” in Complainant’s position would
have found the conduct to be hostile or abusive. 	Complainant must also prove that the conduct
was taken because of a protected basis – in this case, his race, sex or protected activity. Only if
Complainant establishes both of those elements – hostility and motive – will the question of
Agency liability present itself.
Here, the undisputed evidence of record fully supports the AJ’s conclusion that there is no support
for a finding that Complainant’s race, sex or retaliatory animus played any role in the events at
issue. In sum, we conclude that the AJ correctly determined that the preponderance of the evidence
did not establish that Complainant was discriminated against or subjected to unlawful retaliation
by the Agency as alleged.
CONCLUSION
We AFFIRM the Agency’s final order adopting the AJ’s decision without a hearing, finding no
discrimination.
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.

2020000021	5
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.
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 23, 2020
Date