Danny A. Lyles, Appellant,v.William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (S.E./S.W. Region), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionJan 15, 1999
01971703 (E.E.O.C. Jan. 15, 1999)

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