Janie M. Franklin, Complainant, William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionApr 17, 2000
01983000 (E.E.O.C. Apr. 17, 2000)

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.