DECISION AND JUDGMENT
This matter is before the Office of Compliance on allegations age discrimination. Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 (CAA) §201 (al (2), 109 stat. 7, 2 use 1311.
Complainant, Thomas J. Devlin, who is 51 years old asserts that Respondent, the Office of the Architect of the Capitol (AOC), discriminated against him by failing to do a “desk audit” of his position as a GS-8 Building Inspector and by failing to give him a non-competitive promotion to GS-9 Building Inspector based on accretion of duties. He contends that these failures:
- give rise to a legally sufficient inference of age discrimination
- violate the AOC Personnel Manual, Ch. 335, 1. 8. 6 and
- entitle him to retroactive promotion to GS-9 with all benefits dating back to 1998.
He offers no other indicia of discrimination either by way of specific personal incidents, pattern and practice or promotion of persons younger than himself to the GS-9 Building Inspection vacancies which he sought.
Respondent, AOC, denies any discrimination against Devlin. It relies on Mr. Devlin’s evidence and asserts that:
- Mr. Devin knew that “desk audits” were available when seeking non-competitive promotions under AOC personnel procedures and
- Mr. Devlin has never been denied or refused a “desk audit” or a non-competitive promotion.
Respondent also asserts that the Office of Compliance does not have jurisdiction or expertise to do the “desk audit” which is required for the relief requested in this case or award damages dating from 1998.
After considering the evidence, the arguments· of counsel and the applicable law, the Hearing Officer finds and concludes that judgment should be entered for the AOC. Mr. Devlin fails to prove a violation of the CAA.
- Mr. Devlin does not establish an “adverse action” by the AOC.
- Even if there were an “adverse action,” he does not present either facts or legal theories which establish age discrimination.
- The claims and requests for relief are not within the jurisdiction of the Office of Compliance.
