Geraldine B. Smith, Complainant,v.John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionMay 4, 2006
01a55816 (E.E.O.C. May. 4, 2006)

01a55816

05-04-2006

Geraldine B. Smith, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.


Geraldine B. Smith v. United States Postal Service

01A55816

May 4, 2006

.

Geraldine B. Smith,

Complainant,

v.

John E. Potter,

Postmaster General,

United States Postal Service,

Agency.

Appeal No. 01A55816

Agency No. 4C-440-0001-04

DECISION

Complainant initiated an appeal from a final decision concerning her

complaint of unlawful employment discrimination in violation of Title

VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), as amended, 42 U.S.C. �

2000e et seq. For the following reasons, the Commission AFFIRMS the

agency's final decision.

The record reveals that during the relevant time, complainant was an

applicant for employment<1> at the agency's facility in Akron, Ohio

facility. Complainant sought EEO counseling and subsequently filed a

formal complaint on November 3, 2003, alleging that she was discriminated

against on the bases of race (African-American) and reprisal for prior

EEO activity when:

In August 2003, complainant was not interviewed for the position of

EEO Dispute Resolution Specialist, EAS 17.

In August 2003, management delayed the processing of complainant's Form

50 (promotion).

At the conclusion of the investigation, complainant was informed of

her right to request a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge

or alternatively, to receive a final decision by the agency. In the

absence of any timely response from complainant, the agency issued a

final decision, dated August 1, 2005.

In its final decision, the agency concluded that complainant failed to

establish a prima facie case of either race or reprisal discrimination

regarding either claim. Specifically, the agency found that of seven

applicants for the subject position, four were selected for an interview.

Of the three not selected for an interview, one applicant was Caucasian,

as was the selectee. The other applicants' races are unknown.

Additionally, the agency found that the panel members responsible

for review of the application packages and selecting the interviewees,

recall that complainant's knowledge, skills and abilities were weak when

compared to other applicants and one panel member recalled that those

selected for interviews had achieved significantly higher rank in the

agency than complainant at the time of the selection process.

Regarding claim (2), the agency found that complainant's Form 50,

which effected complainant's promotion in August 2003, was delayed

because complainant had indicated she was considering a voluntary early

retirement action (VERA) which would have affected her promotion.

Accordingly, the agency found that even if complainant had established

a prima facie case of race or reprisal discrimination, that complainant

had failed to rebut the agency's legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons

for its actions.

To prevail in a disparate treatment claim such as this, complainant

must satisfy the three-part evidentiary scheme fashioned by the Supreme

Court in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). He

must generally establish a prima facie case by demonstrating that

he was subjected to an adverse employment action under circumstances

that would support an inference of discrimination. Furnco Construction

Co. v. Waters, 438 U.S. 567, 576 (1978). The prima facie inquiry may be

dispensed with in this case, however, since the agency has articulated

legitimate and nondiscriminatory reasons for its conduct. See United

States Postal Service Board of Governors v. Aikens, 460 U.S. 711,

713-17 (1983); Holley v. Department of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Request

No. 05950842 (November 13, 1997). To ultimately prevail, complainant must

prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the agency's explanation

is a pretext for discrimination. Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing

Products, Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 120 S.Ct. 2097 (2000); St. Mary's Honor

Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 519 (1993); Texas Department of Community

Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 256 (1981); Holley v. Department of

Veterans Affairs, EEOC Request No. 05950842 (November 13, 1997); Pavelka

v. Department of the Navy, EEOC Request No. 05950351 (December 14, 1995).

Complainant can establish a prima facie case of reprisal discrimination

by presenting facts that, if unexplained, reasonably give rise to

an inference of discrimination. Shapiro v. Social Security Admin.,

EEOC Request No. 05960403 (Dec. 6, 1996) (citing McDonnell Douglas

Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802 (1973)). Specifically, in a reprisal

claim, and in accordance with the burdens set forth in McDonnell

Douglas, Hochstadt v. Worcester Foundation for Experimental Biology,

425 F. Supp. 318, 324 (D. Mass.), aff'd, 545 F.2d 222 (1st Cir. 1976),

and Coffman v. Department of Veteran Affairs, EEOC Request No. 05960473

(November 20, 1997), a complainant may establish a prima facie case of

reprisal by showing that: (1) he or she engaged in a protected activity;

(2) the agency was aware of the protected activity; (3) subsequently,

he or she was subjected to adverse treatment by the agency; and (4) a

nexus exists between the protected activity and the adverse treatment.

Whitmire v. Department of the Air Force, EEOC Appeal No. 01A00340

(September 25, 2000).

The Commission concurs with the agency's determination that even if,

for arguments' sake, we assume that complainant established a prima

facie case of race or reprisal discrimination, she has not shown that the

agency's reasons for its actions are not worthy of belief and a pretext

for discrimination. Specifically, we find that complainant has not

shown that her qualifications and application materials were superior

or at least equivalent to those presented by the applicants granted an

interview. Moreover, at least one panel member, concurring with the

panel's ultimate interview selections, was unaware of complainant's

race or prior EEO activity.

The Commission further finds (regarding claim (2)), that complainant

failed to present evidence that more likely than not, the agency's

articulated reasons for its actions were a pretext for discrimination.

In reaching this conclusion, we note that complainant has not disputed

the agency's claim that she was considering retirement at the time

her promotion was being processed in August - September 2003, which,

we find, would logically have delayed the processing of any further

pending personnel actions.

Therefore, after a careful review of the record, we affirm the agency's

final decision finding no discrimination.

STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL

RECONSIDERATION (M0701)

The Commission may, in its discretion, reconsider the decision in this

case if the complainant or the agency submits a written request containing

arguments or evidence which tend to establish 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.

Requests to reconsider, with supporting statement or brief, must be filed

with the Office of Federal Operations (OFO) within thirty (30) calendar

days of receipt of this decision or within twenty (20) calendar days of

receipt of another party's timely request for reconsideration. See 29

C.F.R. � 1614.405; Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive for

29 C.F.R. Part 1614 (EEO MD-110), 9-18 (November 9, 1999). All requests

and arguments must 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 timely filed if it is received by

mail within five days of the expiration of the applicable filing period.

See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.604. The request or opposition must also include

proof of service on the other party.

Failure to file within the time period will result in dismissal of your

request for reconsideration as untimely, unless extenuating circumstances

prevented the timely filing of the request. 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).

COMPLAINANT'S RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (S0900)

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. 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 (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

May 4, 2006

__________________

Date

1Complainant was employed as a Human Relations Specialist for the agency

in Cleveland, Ohio at the time the complaint was filed.