Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Singleton v. Federal Bureau of Prisons

May 16, 2006

BERNARD SINGLETON, PLAINTIFF,
v.
FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS AND ATTORNEY GENERAL JOHN ASHCROFT, DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sifton, Senior Judge.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff, Bernard Singleton, commenced this action by filing a complaint invoking this Court's federal question jurisdiction against defendants the Federal Bureau of Prisons*fn1 ("BOP") and the United States Attorney General.*fn2 The complaint sets forth claims for relief based on race and gender discrimination and retaliation, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §2000e et. seq. ("Title VII"). The defendant now moves for summary judgment dismissing the complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. For the reasons set forth below the defendant's motion for summary judgment is granted.

BACKGROUND

The following facts are taken from the parties' Local Rule 56.1 statements*fn3 and the affidavits and exhibits submitted in connection with this motion. Disputes are noted.

Plaintiff, Bernard Singleton, is an African American male. In 1985 he was hired by the Bureau of Prisons to work at the Federal Correctional Institute at Otisville ("FCI-Otisville") as a Wage Leader ("WL")/Warehouse Worker, a WL-3 grade position. In May 1999 Plaintiff was promoted from a Wage Leader/Warehouse Worker to his present position as a Warehouse Supervisor ("WS") at the Metropolitan Correctional Center in New York ("MCC"). His current grade level is WS-5. Plaintiff's duties as Warehouse Supervisor include: overseeing the prison laundry, commissary and warehouse; ordering merchandise; maintaining proper receipts and inventory control; and providing evaluations for a staff of twenty inmates and four BOP Employees.

On December 28, 1996 plaintiff filed an EEO discrimination complaint against MCC Assistant Warden Carl Vitanza.*fn4 On May 15, 1997 plaintiff acknowledged in writing that the 1996 EEO complaint had been satisfactorily resolved.

Plaintiff Not Hired for Otisville Position

On March 19, 1998 the Northeast Regional Office of the Bureau of Prisons advertised the position of GS-11 Support Services Supervisor at FCI-Otisville ("FCI-Otisville Position")under vacancy number 09-NERO-050. The announcement specified that applicants for the position must demonstrate the following:

1. Ability to communicate orally.

2. Ability to plan and organize work.

3. Skill in use of personal computer.

4. Ability to supervise and develop potential of subordinates.

5. Knowledge of warehouse/inventory management procedures.

(FCI-Otisville Position Announcement No. 98-NERO-050, Def. Ex. C).

On April 1, 1998 Aura Gonzalez, a Hispanic female, applied for the FCI-Otisville Position. At the time of her application Gonzalez was working as a GS-7 Accounting Technician. Her most recent annual evaluation was an "exceeds" evaluation. More specifically, the evaluation stated that Gonzalez had excellent communications skills and had used her prior technical experience to implement a new computer program in the business office. Gonzalez's prior work experience included work as a GS-9 Inventory Management Specialist at the Federal Detention Center in Miami Florida from June 13, 1993 to January 7, 1996.

On April 2, 1998 plaintiff applied for the FCI-Otisville position. At that time, plaintiff's most recent annual evaluation was an "exceeds" evaluation which rated the plaintiff fully successful in directing work and supervising inmates. However, the evaluation indicated concerns in the first six months of that rating period with respect to plaintiff's planning, monitoring and evaluating operations, maintaining and providing expertise and his ability to communicate.

Both Gonzalez and Singleton were ranked as among the top five applicants and placed on the "Best Qualified List" for the FCI-Otisville Position.*fn5 The other three candidates on the "Best Qualified List" were a Hispanic male, an Asian Pacific Islander male and another African-American male.

Northeast Regional Director David Rardin, a Caucasian male, was the selecting official for the FCI-Otisville Position. Although when selecting applicants Rardin often receives input or recommendations from the applicant's Warden, in this particular case, Rardin testified that he did not receive any such input concerning the plaintiff.*fn6 According to Regional Director Rardin, he selected Gonzalez rather than the plaintiff because the plaintiff's evaluation reflected concerns in the first six months of the rating period with respect to planning, monitoring and evaluating operations, maintaining and providing expertise and his ability to communicate. Rardin explained that he compared the two candidates, and noted that Gonzalez scored higher than the plaintiff in areas of communication ability and technical expertise, and had held three different Financial Management assignments in three different institutions while Plaintiff had only worked in two institutions. Thus, Rardin concluded that overall Gonzalez was a more experienced and better qualified applicant. Plaintiff states, however, that Gonzalez was not qualified or eligible for the promotion because the promotion would move her up more than 2 pay grades (from GS-7 to GS-11) in violation of the Bureau of Prisons Operating Manual ("Operating Manual").

The Operating Manual provides in relevant part: Most qualification standards require that a certain amount of the qualifying experience be at a level of difficulty and responsibility equivalent to the next lower or second lower grade. The grade-level criteria in the position classification standard or guide help in making this determination, particularly for applicant's ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.