01975449
09-16-1999
Florence Santiago, Appellant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Florence Santiago v. United States Postal Service
01975449
September 16, 1999
Florence Santiago, )
Appellant, )
) Appeal No. 01975449
v. ) Agency No. 4G-700-108394
) Hearing No. 270-95-9086X
William J. Henderson, )
Postmaster General, )
United States Postal Service, )
Agency. )
______________________________ )
DECISION
Appellant filed an appeal with this Commission from a final decision of
the agency concerning her complaint of unlawful employment discrimination,
in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended,
42 U.S.C. � 2000e et seq. Appellant alleges discrimination based upon
her race (Negroid), and reprisal (prior EEO activity) when, on November
17, 1993, she was non-selected for the position of Postmaster, Ama,
Louisiana, EAS-13. The appeal is accepted in accordance with EEOC Order
No. 960.001.
On February 1, 1994, appellant filed a complaint alleging discrimination
as referenced above. Appellant's complaint was accepted for processing.
Following an investigation, appellant requested a hearing before an
EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). An administrative hearing took place
on November 2, 1995. On April 2, 1997, the AJ issued her decision and
recommended a finding of no discrimination with respect to each issue.
The agency subsequently adopted the AJ's recommended decision. It is
this agency decision which the appellant now appeals.
The AJ reviewed the entire record, assessed the witnesses' credibility
at the hearing and made the following findings of fact: At all times
relevant to this matter, appellant was employed as a Distribution
Window Clerk PS-5 with the agency. On September 27, 1993, the agency
issued a vacancy announcement for the position of Postmaster EAS-13
in Ama, Louisiana. The duties of the position include supervising and
providing a combination of window, box, general delivery, rural route,
highway contract route or city delivery service to a small community.
Appellant applied for the position on September 30, 1993. Fifteen
other employees also applied. The Manager of Post Office Operations
for the New Orleans District EAS-15 was the selecting official (SO).
SO reviewed the applications and narrowed the field to eight candidates
who were interviewed. Appellant was one of the eight candidates who
was interviewed. Following the interviews, SO again narrowed the field
to four candidates (C1, C2, C3, and C4) (all are white, none had prior
EEO activity). SO ultimately selected C1 for the position.
SO and C1 started their careers with the agency in 1971. Both SO and
C1 have served as officers-in-charge (OIC) of other post offices at
the EAS-13 level. SO served as OIC for six months. C1 served as OIC
for two months. Appellant served as acting postmaster periodically in
small offices for 22 years. C1 served on a fifteen-month detail as an
Acting Supervisor of Mails and Delivery EAS-15 in the Harvey, Louisiana
post office.
The AJ determined that appellant established a prima facie case of race
and reprisal discrimination. Specifically, the AJ noted that appellant
was a member of the protected classes alleged and was qualified for the
position which was ultimately filled by a member outside her protected
classes. In addition, the AJ noted that SO testified that he was aware
of appellant's prior EEO activity which took place sometime in 1993.
The AJ also noted that appellant mentioned her prior EEO activity during
her interview.
Appellant testified that on May 24, 1993, SO asked her to drop her EEO
actions "or anything would be used against [her]." SO denied making
the remark. Based upon the witnesses demeanor and various inconsistent
statements by appellant, the AJ found SO's denial credible.
The AJ also found that the agency articulated legitimate,
non-discriminatory reasons for its employment action. Specifically,
the AJ noted that he did not find appellant to be one the best four
candidates based upon the contents of her application and interview.
In addition, SO testified that C1 was selected for the position because he
"possessed the right mix to be an excellent postmaster." SO testified,
inter alia, that C1's performance as an OIC was excellent and he worked
as an acting supervisor in the Harvey, Louisiana post office which was
a level 22 office.
Lastly, the AJ determined that appellant failed to prove pretext or that
the agency was motivated by discriminatory animus. Appellant argued
that the agency violated its prior selection practice by interviewing C2,
a candidate who had no OIC experience. However, SO testified that there
was no such prohibition and noted that C2's experience as a postmaster's
relief was equivalent to OIC experience. Appellant also asserted
that she was more qualified than C1 since she worked in a smaller post
office where she had assumed responsibilities for the entire office.
C1, on the other hand, did not have the same opportunity because he
was detailed to one functional area in a large post office. While SO
acknowledged appellant's 22 years of supervisory experience, he noted that
such experience was not continuous and appellant only served as acting
postmaster when the postmaster was unavailable which occurred about one
day a week. SO also testified that appellant's application and interview
responses were not as good as other candidates. For example, he testified
that appellant utilized a narrative format describing her qualification
in her application, whereas the final four best qualified applicants
all utilized the recommended "situation/task-action-result" format.
In addition, SO testified that he did not find appellant's narrative
as specific as the descriptions submitted by the other candidates.
Specifically, SO testified that appellant failed to give examples of some
of her accomplishments and did not provide the names of supervisors who
could verify them. Based upon the record, the AJ did not find appellant
more qualified than C1. Accordingly, the AJ did not find that appellant
sufficiently established pretext or provide evidence of discriminatory
motives in SO's selection decision.
After a careful review of the entire record, including arguments and
evidence not specifically addressed in this decision, the Commission
finds that, in all material respects, the AJ accurately set forth the
relevant facts and properly analyzed the case using the appropriate
regulations, policies, and laws. Based upon the evidence of record,
the Commission discerns no basis to disturb the AJ's finding of no
discrimination. We note that appellant failed to raise any contentions
on appeal. Accordingly, we discern no basis upon which to disturb the
AJ's recommended finding of no discrimination. Therefore, it is the
decision of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to AFFIRM the
agency's final decision finding no discrimination.
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. � 1614.604(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. If you file a request to reconsider and also file a
civil action, 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:
9/16/99
_______________ _______________________
DATE Carlton M. Hadden, Acting Director
Office of Federal Operations