01983120
01-15-1999
Barbara J. Biddle, Appellant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (Great Lakes/Midwest Region), Agency.
Barbara J. Biddle v. United States Postal Service
01983120
January 15, 1999
Barbara J. Biddle, )
Appellant, )
)
v. ) Appeal No. 01983120
) Agency No. 1-I-531-1082-96
William J. Henderson, )
Postmaster General, )
United States Postal Service, )
(Great Lakes/Midwest Region), )
Agency. )
___________________________________)
DECISION
On March 11, 1998, Barbara J. Biddle (appellant) timely appealed the
final decision of the United States Postal Service (agency), dated
February 5, 1998, concluding she had not been discriminated against
in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended,
42 U.S.C. �2000e et seq., and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act
(ADEA) of 1967, as amended, 29 U.S.C. �621 et seq. Appellant had alleged
she had been discriminated against on the basis of her race (black),
age (DOB: 7-4-43), and/or reprisal for engaging in prior EEO activity,
when, in April 1996, she had not been selected for a detail as Tour 2,
acting Manager, Distribution Operations (MDO), Milwaukee, Wisconsin,
Processing and Distribution Center. This appeal is accepted in accordance
with the provisions of EEOC Order No. 960.001.
At the time the events at issue occurred, appellant was employed at the
Milwaukee Processing and Distribution Center as a Supervisor, Distribution
Operations. The Milwaukee MDO (white male; over 40) stated that the Plant
Manager requested that he recommend the names of several supervisors
to routinely act in his stead whenever he was absent. The MDO said he
submitted the names of a number of supervisors, including appellant.
The Plant Manager (black male, age 50) said he interviewed all the
individuals recommended to him by the MDO, asking each of them the
same basic management questions about the MDO position. Following the
interview, appellant learned that another individual (Hispanic male;
DOB:10-23-57) was selected to serve as acting MDO. The Plant Manager said
he did not select appellant because she did not demonstrate during the
interview that she had a broad understanding of the MDO job requirements.
In addition, he said he had concerns about her poor attendance record.
The Plant Manager further said that he was familiar with the work of
the individual he selected because he had previously worked for him as
an acting MDO when the Plant Manager was a Postmaster.
On June 14, 1996, appellant filed a formal EEO complaint, alleging
that the agency had discriminated against her as referenced above.
The agency accepted the complaint and conducted an investigation.
At the conclusion of the investigation, appellant did not file a timely
request for a hearing and, on February 5, 1998, the agency issued its
final decision based on the evidence of record, which concluded no
discrimination occurred in this matter. It is from this decision that
appellant now appeals.
Appellant's allegation of discrimination constitutes a claim of disparate
treatment which is properly analyzed under the three-tiered analytical
framework outlined in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792
(1973). See also, Cooper v. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, 467
U.S. 867 (1984); U.S. Postal Service Board of Governors v. Aikens,
460 U.S. 711, 715-716 (1983); Texas Department of Community Affairs
v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 253-256 (1981).
Applying this legal standard, the Commission finds, with regard
to appellant's reprisal claim, no prima facie case as the evidence of
record does not establish the necessary nexus between her prior protected
activity and the action at issue. While the Plant Manager admitted to
some awareness that appellant had been involved in prior EEO activity,
it all occurred before he came to Milwaukee and he was not aware of
any of the specifics. On the other hand, the Commission finds that
appellant has establish a prima facie case of race and age discrimination
as she was a qualified candidate who was passed over in favor of a younger
Hispanic candidate. However, this initial inference of discrimination was
successfully rebutted by the agency with its articulation of legitimate,
nondiscriminatory reasons for the actions taken. After a careful review
of the record, the Commission discerns no basis upon which to conclude
that appellant established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that
the agency's articulated reasons for its actions in this matter were
unbelievable or that its actions were more likely motivated by race or
age discrimination.
Based upon a thorough review of the record, and for the foregoing reasons,
it is the decision of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to
AFFIRM the agency's final decision which concluded no discrimination or
retaliation occurred in this matter.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0795)
The Commission may, in its discretion, reconsider the decision in this
case if the appellant or the agency submits a written request containing
arguments or evidence which tend to establish that:
1. New and material evidence is available that was not readily available
when the previous decision was issued; or
2. The previous decision involved an erroneous interpretation of law,
regulation or material fact, or misapplication of established policy; or
3. The decision is of such exceptional nature as to have substantial
precedential implications.
Requests to reconsider, with supporting arguments or evidence, MUST
BE FILED WITHIN THIRTY (30) CALENDAR DAYS of the date you receive this
decision, or WITHIN TWENTY (20) CALENDAR DAYS of the date you receive
a timely request to reconsider filed by another party. Any argument in
opposition to the request to reconsider or cross request to reconsider
MUST be submitted to the Commission and to the requesting party
WITHIN TWENTY (20) CALENDAR DAYS of the date you receive the request
to reconsider. See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.407. All requests and arguments
must bear proof of postmark and be submitted to the Director, Office of
Federal Operations, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, P.O. Box
19848, Washington, D.C. 20036. In the absence of a legible postmark,
the request to reconsider shall be deemed filed on the date it is received
by the Commission.
Failure to file within the time period will result in dismissal of your
request for reconsideration as untimely. If extenuating circumstances
have prevented the timely filing of a request for reconsideration,
a written statement setting forth the circumstances which caused the
delay and 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. � l6l4.604(c).
RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (S0993)
It is the position of the Commission that 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.
You should be aware, however, that courts in some jurisdictions have
interpreted the Civil Rights Act of 1991 in a manner suggesting that
a civil action must be filed WITHIN THIRTY (30) CALENDAR DAYS from
the date that you receive this decision. To ensure that your civil
action is considered timely, you are advised to file it WITHIN THIRTY
(30) CALENDAR DAYS from the date that you receive this decision or
to consult an attorney concerning the applicable time period in the
jurisdiction in which your action would be filed. 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. Filing a civil action will terminate the
administrative processing of your complaint.
RIGHT TO REQUEST COUNSEL (Z1092)
If you decide to file a civil action, and if you do not have or cannot
afford the services of an attorney, you may request that the Court appoint
an attorney to represent you and that the Court permit you to file the
action without payment of fees, costs, or other security. See Title VII
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. �2000e et seq.;
the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 29 U.S.C. ��791, 794(c).
The grant or denial of the request is within the sole discretion of
the Court. Filing a request for an attorney does not extend your time
in which to file a civil action. Both the request and the civil action
must be filed within the time limits as stated in the paragraph above
("Right to File A Civil Action").
FOR THE COMMISSION:
Jan 15, 1999
_________________ ____________________________
DATE Ronnie Blumenthal, Director
Office of Federal Operations