01971703
01-15-1999
Danny A. Lyles, Appellant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (S.E./S.W. Region), Agency.
Danny A. Lyles v. United States Postal Service
01971703
January 15, 1999
Danny A. Lyles, )
Appellant, )
) Appeal No. 01971703
v. ) Agency No. 1H-322-1009-94
) Hearing No. 150-95-8179X
William J. Henderson, )
Postmaster General, )
United States Postal Service, )
(S.E./S.W. Region), )
Agency. )
)
)
DECISION
Appellant timely initiated an appeal from a final agency decision (FAD)
concerning his equal employment opportunity (EEO) complaint of unlawful
employment discrimination on the basis of race (African-American), in
violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42
U.S.C. � 2000e et seq. Appellant alleges he was discriminated against
when he was not selected for the position of Dock Clerk (DC), Level 6,
on December 7, 1993. The appeal is accepted in accordance with EEOC
Order No. 960.001. For the following reasons, the agency's decision is
AFFIRMED.
The record reveals that during the relevant time, appellant was employed
as a Distribution Clerk, Level 5, at the agency's Bulk Mail Center in
Jacksonville, Florida, and had been detailed to a DC position for one
year. On September 23, 1993, appellant applied for one of six vacant
DC positions and was subsequently referred to the selecting official
(SO) for an interview. Of the six applicants, all but the appellant
were Caucasian, and following interviews with the applicants, the SO
selected four persons, all of whom were Caucasian.
Believing he was a victim of discrimination, appellant sought EEO
counseling and, subsequently, filed a formal complaint on January 3,
1994. At the conclusion of the investigation, appellant was provided
a copy of the investigative report and requested a hearing before an
EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). Following a hearing, the AJ issued a
Recommended Decision (RD) finding no discrimination.
The AJ concluded that while the appellant established a prima facie
case of race discrimination, the agency articulated legitimate,
nondiscriminatory reasons for not selecting him, as the SO testified that
the appellant's supervisors stated he needed more training for the DC
position and the four selectees had better records in the crucial areas
of annual and sick leave. The AJ further noted that the SO stated that
while several candidates had discrepancies in their applications for the
DC positions, including appellant, these did not weigh heavily on his
decision and he selected the best qualified applicants. The AJ concluded
that appellant failed to demonstrate that his qualifications were plainly
superior to those of the selectees, or that his application was not fully
considered due to race. The AJ thus concluded that appellant failed to
present evidence that the agency's actions were based on discriminatory
animus.
The agency's FAD adopted the findings of the AJ. Neither appellant nor
the agency has made new arguments on appeal. The agency stands on the
record and requests that the Commission affirm its FAD.
After a careful review of the record, the Commission finds that the
AJ's RD summarized the relevant facts and referenced the appropriate
regulations, policies, and laws. We agree with the AJ that while the
appellant established a prima facie case of race discrimination, the
SO's finding that the selectees had better DC qualifications and annual
and sick leave records than the appellant constituted legitimate,
nondiscriminatory reasons for his nonselection. Texas Department
of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248 (1981). In addition,
we agree with the AJ that as the appellant failed to demonstrate that
his qualifications were plainly superior to those of the selectees or
that his application was not given full consideration due to lack of
a supervisor's evaluation, the agency's actions were not a pretext for
race discrimination. U.S. Postal Service Board of Governors v. Aikens,
460 U.S. 711 (1983). We discern no basis to disturb the AJ's findings of
no discrimination which were based on a detailed assessment of the record
and the credibility of the witnesses. See Anderson v. Bessemer City,
470 U.S. 564, 575 (1985); Saramma v. Department of Veterans Affairs, EEOC
Request No. 05930131 (September 2, 1993); Wrenn v. Gould, 808 F.2d 493,
499 (6th Cir. 1987). Therefore, after a careful review of the record,
including appellant's arguments on appeal, the agency's response, and
arguments and evidence not specifically discussed in this decision,
the Commission AFFIRMS the FAD.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0795)
The Commission may, in its discretion, reconsider the decision in the
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 the
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. � 1614.604(c).
RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (R0993)
This is a decision requiring the agency to continue its administrative
processing of your complaint. However, if you wish to file a civil
action, you have the right to file such action in an appropriate United
States District Court. 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. In the alternative,
you may file a civil action AFTER ONE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY (180) CALENDAR
DAYS of the date you filed your complaint with the agency, or filed your
appeal with the Commission. 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