OFFICE OF COMPLIANCE
LA 200, John Adams Building, 110 Second Street, S.E.
Washington, DC 20540-1999
THOMAS J. DEVLIN,
v. Case No. 01-AC-373(RP)
June 17 , 2004
OFFICE OF THE ARCHITECT
OF THE CAPITOL
Before the Board of Directors: Susan
S. Robfogel, Chair; Barbara L. Camens, Alan V. Friedman; Roberta
L. Holzwarth; Barbara Childs Wallace, Members.
DECISION OF THE BOARD OF
On November 18, 2003, Hearing Officer Sylvia
Bacon issued the attached Decision and Judgment. The Hearing Officer
concluded that the Respondent had not engaged in age discrimination
in not promoting the Complainant from his position of Building Inspector,
pay grade GS-08.
The Board has considered the decision in light
of the record, the petition for review, and the parties’ briefs.
The Board finds that the Hearing Officer’s conclusions are
supported by substantial evidence and affirms the Hearing Officer’s
determination that the record does not establish proscribed discrimination.
See Office of the Architect of the Capitol v. Office of Compliance,
et al., 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 4541 (Fed. Cir. 03/11/2004); Francisca
Laguna v. Office of the Architect of the Capitol, Case No.
02-AC-54(CV,FL) (Board of Directors Decision, dated April 8, 2004).
We rely upon the Hearing Officer’s finding and conclusion
that the Appellant did not prove that his age motivated the Appellee’s
failure to promote him. In so holding, we do not and need not rule
on the alternate finding that the Appellant’s non-promotion
was not an actionable adverse action. See Francisca Laguna v.
Office of the Architect of the Capitol, supra.
We are satisfied that the Hearing Officer applied
the correct legal standards in analyzing this case; although she
did not cite the case law manifesting that controlling discrimination
proof paradigm that guided her analysis . We do not agree with the
Appellant that the decision is independently deficient for its failure
to cite case law. “[I]t is the validity of the judgment, not
the quality of any opinion supporting it, that has legal significance,
and the court’s failure to cite any cases has no relevance
to whether the court reached the correct legal result.” James
Constant v. United States, 929 F.2d 654, at 657 (Fed Cir. 1991).
Pursuant to Section 406(e) of the Congressional
Accountability Act and Section 8.01(d) of the Office’s Procedural
Rules, the Board affirms the Hearing Officer’s merits determination
of no discrimination in this matter.
It is so ordered
Issued, Washington, D.C. : June 17, 2004
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this 17th day of June,
2004, I delivered a copy of this Decision of the Board of Directors
to the following parties by the below identified means:
First-Class Mail Postage-Prepaid
Jeffrey H. Leib, Esq.
Attorney at Law
5104 34th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20008
Office of the Architect of the Capitol
c/o John Clifford and Peter Butcher, Esqs.
1620 L. Street, N.W., Suite 625
Washington, DC 20036-5631
First-Class Mail Postage-Prepaid,
& Facsimile Mail (w/o Hearing Officer
Peggy Tyler, Esq.
Office of Architect of the Capitol
Office of Employment Counsel
Ford House Building, Room H2-202
Washington, D.C. 20515
Kisha L. Harley
Office of Compliance