05a00784
01-08-2001
Charlie M. Johnson-Foreman, Complainant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Southwest Area), Agency.
Charlie M. Johnson-Foreman v. United States Postal Service
05A00784
January 8, 2001
.
Charlie M. Johnson-Foreman,
Complainant,
v.
William J. Henderson,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Southwest Area),
Agency.
Request No. 05A00784
Appeal No. 01991163
Agency No. 4-G-700-1120-96
DENIAL OF REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
The complainant initiated a request to the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (EEOC or Commission) to reconsider the decision in Charlie
M. Johnson-Foreman v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Appeal
No. 01991163 (April 12, 2000).<1> EEOC Regulations provide that the
Commission may, in its discretion, reconsider any previous Commission
decision where the requesting party demonstrates that: (1) the appellate
decision involved a clearly erroneous interpretation of material fact
or law; or (2) the appellate decision will have a substantial impact on
the policies, practices, or operations of the agency. See 29 C.F.R. �
1614.405(b).
Complainant alleged that she was discriminated against on the basis of
her race (Black) and sex (female) when on February 16, 1996, she was
not selected for the position of Address Management Specialist, EAS-15,
in Shreveport, Louisiana. The appellate decision affirmed the agency's
Final Decision (FAD) which found no discrimination. The agency found
that management articulated a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for
their selection. Specifically, the agency found that the evidence in
the record did not support complainant's assertions that the selectee was
�prepped� for his interview by members of the review panel. One panel
member (P1) (Caucasian/male) testified that he did not �prep� the selectee
for the position. P1, a Directory Analysis Specialist (DAS), testified
that the selectee was an electronic technician prior to his selection.
Furthermore, P1 stated that previously he had requested that someone
be trained to assist him during his frequent road trips to other sites.
The selectee was selected by Maintenance Management to assist P1 in the
DAS office. The DAS position required knowledge of the mail processing
equipment and an electronic technician had that background. He further
stated that no one else elected to attend the schools required to learn
the inner working of the equipment. The selectee received extensive
training in the DAS position which included the National Directory Support
System Database. This database has close ties to the Address Management
Systems database, but other than containing address information, there was
no similarity. The training that the selectee received was required to
perform the DAS function only. Finally, P1 stated that over the years,
he had helped several people, including complainant, in the Shreveport
Processing and Distribution Center prepare their Form 991s. He also
indicated that he had helped them prepare for interviews. Moreover,
he noted that had complainant asked him for help with respect to the
interview at issue, he would have made himself available to her.
The other review panel member (P2) (Caucasian/female) testified that she
used the applicants' PS Form 991 responses to the requirements of the
position and their verbal responses during the interview. She stated
that the selectee was taught the position requirements of the DAS for
his detail into that position and she had no input on his training and
certainly did not �prep� him for the AMS Specialist position.
The agency found the explanation of management's selection legitimate
and non-discriminatory. Moreover, complainant failed to present evidence
of pretext or discriminatory animus. Accordingly, the agency found that
complainant failed to satisfy her burden of proving, by a preponderance
of the evidence, that her non-selection was motivated by discriminatory
animus.
On appeal and again in her request for reconsideration, complainant
argues that one of the bases given by P2 for the selection was that the
selectee had an MBA degree. Complainant argues that the selectee did
not receive such a degree. According to the EEO counselor, P2 found the
selectee's skills better than complainant's because he had a Master's
Degree and large data base experience. Assuming complainant is correct
in her assertion that the selectee did not have a Master's Degree, the
record, nevertheless, indicates that P1 and P2 had every reason to believe
complainant held a Master's Degree since it was noted on his application.
There is no contrary evidence in the record. Accordingly, even assuming
complainant is correct that the selectee did not possess such a degree,
she has not shown that the review panel's explanation for its selection
was pretextual.
After a review of the complainant's request for reconsideration, the
previous decision, and the entire record, the Commission finds that the
request fails to meet the criteria of 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405(b), and it
is the decision of the Commission to deny the request. The decision
in EEOC Appeal No. 01991163 remains the Commission's final decision.
There is no further right of administrative appeal on the decision of
the Commission on this request for reconsideration.
COMPLAINANT'S RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (P0900)
This decision of the Commission is final, and there is no further right
of administrative appeal from the Commission's decision. 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. 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.
RIGHT TO REQUEST COUNSEL (Z1199)
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:
______________________________
Carlton M. Hadden, Director
Office of Federal Operations
January 8, 2001
__________________
Date
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
For timeliness purposes, the Commission will presume that this decision
was received within five (5) calendar days after it was mailed. I certify
that this decision was mailed to complainant, complainant's representative
(if applicable), and the agency on:
__________________
Date
______________________________
1On November 9, 1999, revised regulations governing the EEOC's federal
sector complaint process went into effect. These regulations apply
to all federal sector EEO complaints pending at any stage in the
administrative process. Consequently, the Commission will apply
the revised regulations found at 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 in deciding the
present appeal. The regulations, as amended, may also be found at the
Commission's website at www.eeoc.gov.