The testimony showed that the population at Bolling was predominately black; the participants in the Youth Center program reflected that fact. Plaintiff testified that upon becoming Director he attempted to sponsor activities designed specifically for the black youth. This, he claimed, was a change from practices before he was employed. He also charged that the Bolling authorities promoted and approved segregated youth activities at the Base -- namely activities at the Center for blacks and at the chapel, located elsewhere on the Base, where the participants were exclusively white or nearly so.
The problem with plaintiff's testimony in this regard was that it included for the greater part only bare allegations, lacking in a factual foundation, analysis, or a minimum showing of the nature of the chapel activities, the length of time that they had existed, if for any period at all, and whether Bolling personnel and funds were budgeted for and involved in the program. In sum, the testimony fell far short to support a finding in plaintiff's favor.
Walters agreed that the majority of the participants at the Youth Center were black as compared with those at the Base chapel. He attributed this to the fact that most of the population was white. He also noted that the activities at the chapel were much more limited than those at the Youth Center; that participation was on a voluntary basis with voluntary personnel in large part, and that the chapel activities were not financed, subsidized or underwritten by the Base.
At the time in question, there were undoubtedly examples and practices of racial discrimination and segregation at Bolling associated with Youth Center activities as well as other programs. However, in the case of the plaintiff Robinson, they were not the underlying reasons for his termination as Youth Director nor were they shown to have impacted on his situation.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Court has jurisdiction over this proceeding pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-1 et seq.
In response to the plaintiff's prima facie case, the government denied racial discrimination and retaliation and demonstrated that Mr. Robinson's performance as Director was unsatisfactory, did not measure up to requirements, and that he provided false information on his employment application form, both as to prior education and employment experiences. The plaintiff has failed to prove by a preponderance of evidence that the defendant's reasons were a pretext for discrimination. The reasons for the plaintiff's discharge have been supported by a preponderance of compelling and persuasive testimony and evidence, the plaintiff's argument notwithstanding.
It is not an abuse of discretion to discharge an employee who falsifies an official government document. Rodriguez v. Seamans, 150 U.S. App. D.C. 1, 463 F.2d 837 (D.C. Cir. 1972). Termination of employment is an accepted and recognized disciplinary action when false information is supplied on a federal application form. Williams v. Boorstin, 213 U.S. App. D.C. 345, 663 F.2d 109, 117-18 (D.C. Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 985, 68 L. Ed. 2d 842, 101 S. Ct. 2319 (1981). Plaintiff was fired from his position at Bolling Air Force Base because he supplied false statements on his SF 171. Air Force regulations provide for removal as an appropriate penalty for falsification, exaggeration or concealment of a material fact in connection with any official document. AFR 40-750, Defendant's Ex. No. 29. Additionally, after his removal it was also discovered that he failed to set forth truthfully and accurately on the SF 171 his prior work experience. These falsifications and inaccuracies supported a strong inference that the misrepresentations on the SF 171 were deliberate. The standards established by McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 36 L. Ed. 2d 668, 93 S. Ct. 1817 (1973) require that a Title VII complainant must be qualified for the position. The nature and extent of the false information supplied by the plaintiff raise serious questions concerning his good judgment, truthfulness and reliability and basic qualifications as Director of the Youth Center.
* * *
The Court appointed David B. Wilkins, Esquire, to represent the plaintiff in this proceeding. Mr. Wilkins responded to the assignment in a commendable manner. The pleadings, legal memoranda and trial presentation on behalf of his client were thorough and complete. The plaintiff was well represented.
An appropriate Order follows.
In accordance with the Memorandum Opinion issued herewith,
it is this 7th day of April, 1986,
That judgment is entered for the defendant; and
That this case is dismissed with prejudice.
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.