01983000
04-17-2000
Janie M. Franklin, Complainant, William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Janie M. Franklin v. United States Postal Service
01983000
April 17, 2000
Janie M. Franklin, )
Complainant, )
)
) Appeal No. 01983000
) Agency No. 4-H-320-0105-97
William J. Henderson, )
Postmaster General, )
United States Postal Service, )
Agency. )
______________________________)
DECISION
Janie M. Franklin (complainant) timely initiated an appeal to the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) from the final decision of the
agency concerning complainant's claims that the agency violated Title VII
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. � 2000e et seq.
The appeal is accepted in accordance with 64 Fed.Reg. 37,644, 37,659
(1999) (to be codified at 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405).<1>
The issue on appeal is whether the agency discriminated against
complainant when, on December 6, 1996, she was denied interviews for
two supervisory positions for which she had applied.
At the time of the alleged discrimination, complainant worked for the
agency as a Full-Time Distribution Window Clerk. She applied for two
vacant positions of Supervisor, Customer Services, EAS-16. There were
eight (8) applicants for the positions which were filled from a single
posting. A Review Committee (the Committee), consisting of a Postmaster,
Customer Service Analyst, and Supervisor, Customer Services recommended to
the selecting official (SO) a Caucasian, female applicant and a Caucasian
male applicant to fill the vacancies. They were the only applicants
rated by the Committee as "Superior" with a rating of twenty-one (21)
and twenty-five (25) respectively. They were also the only applicants
interviewed. Complainant had filed several prior EEO complaints against
the SO, who was her Postmaster.
Complainant filed a formal EEO complaint regarding the nonselections and
a formal investigation was conducted. When complainant did not request
an EEOC hearing or a final agency decision (FAD) within the designated
time period, the agency issued its FAD which found no discrimination.
Complainant now appeals the FAD.
The agency found that complainant failed to establish a prima facie
case of race and sex discrimination because she did not show that she
was treated differently than similarly situated individual(s) outside of
her protected groups. The agency concluded that complainant did not show
that she was even minimally qualified for the Position. In this regard,
the agency stated that complainant failed to adequately explain her
qualifications on her Form 991 and to prepare it as required. The agency
also found that complainant did not establish an inference of reprisal
discrimination in that she did not show a causal connection between the
action alleged and her prior EEO activity and that there was no evidence
that the Committee members were aware of complainant's prior EEO activity.
The agency stated that, according to Committee members' testimony,
complainant was not chosen for the Position because her application did
not reflect qualifications equal or superior to those of the selectees.
According to the agency, complainant failed to adequately complete the
STARS(Situations, Task, Action, Result) portion of her application but
only concentrated on the results of her previous work. The agency
noted that the decision of the Committee was unanimous and that two
of the Committee members testified that they were not even aware of
complainant's prior EEO activity when the selections were made.
Complainant's complaint constitutes a claim of disparate treatment
and the agency properly analyzed it under the three-tiered analytical
framework outlined in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792
(1973). See also St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (1993);
Texas Dept. of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S.248, 253-256 (1981);
Hochstadt v. Worcester Foundation for Experimental Biology, Inc., 425
F.Supp. 318, aff'd, 545 F.2d 222 (1st. Cir. 1976). See also McKenna
v. Weinburger, 729 F.2d 783, 791 (D.C. Cir. 1984) and Burrus v. United
Telephone Co. of Kansas, Inc., 683 F.2d 339, 343 (10th Cir. 1982).
Applying these legal standards, the Commission finds that the agency
correctly determined that complainant failed to prove her claims of
race, sex, and reprisal discrimination. While complainant claimed various
improprieties in the selection process, her primary argument appears to be
that the Committee members were influenced by the selecting official (SO),
whom she (complainant) had filed several prior EEO complaints against.
However, after carefully reviewing the record, we find that complainant
failed to submit evidence sufficient to substantiate this argument.
We note that two of the Committee members testified that, at the time of
the selection process, they were unaware of complainant's EEO history.
We also note that all three Committee members testified that the decision
of the Committee was unanimous. Finally, we also note that the testimony
of two Committee members (White, male and White, female) essentially
mirrored each other regarding the reason for complainant's nonselection.
The remaining Committee member (Black, female), while not as specific
in her testimony, did not dispute the choice of the Committee. Finally,
we emphasize that complainant did not present evidence which disputed the
primary stated explanation for her nonselection - that her application
did not reflect the qualities necessary to reflect a superior applicant
primarily in the STARS category. Accordingly, after carefully reviewing
the entire record, including complainant's contentions on appeal, it
is the decision of the Commission to affirm the agency's decision that
complainant was not discriminated against as alleged.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M1199)
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
64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659 (1999) (to be codified and hereinafter
referred to as 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405). 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 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,661 (1999)
(to be codified and hereinafter referred to as 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).
COMPLAINANTS' RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (S0400)
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:
April 17, 2000
DATE Carlton Hadden, Acting Director
Office of Federal Operations
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
For timeliness purposes, the Commission will presume that this decision
was received within five (5) calendar days of mailing. I certify that
the decision was mailed to complainant, complainant's representative
(if applicable), and the agency on:
_______________________ ___________________________
DATE
1 On 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 64 Fed.Reg. 37,644 (1999), where applicable,
in deciding the present appeal. The regulations, as amended, may also
be found at the Commission's website at www.eeoc.gov.