01990947
04-14-2000
Pamela A. Brooks, Complainant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (Pacific/Western) Agency.
Pamela A. Brooks v. United States Postal Service
01990947
April 14, 2000
Pamela A. Brooks, )
Complainant, )
) Appeal No. 01990947
v. ) Agency No. 4F945013198
)
William J. Henderson, )
Postmaster General, )
United States Postal Service, )
(Pacific/Western) )
Agency. )
____________________________________)
DECISION
Complainant timely initiated an appeal from a final agency decision
(FAD) 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.<1> The appeal is accepted pursuant to 64
Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659 (1999)(to be codified at 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405).
Complainant alleged that she was discriminated against on the bases
of sex and in reprisal (prior protected activity) when on February 6,
1998 she was not selected for a second interview for the position of
Postmaster, Pinole, California, Post Office.
The record reveals that during the relevant time, complainant was
employed as the Postmaster, at the Crockett Post Office. Believing she
was a victim of discrimination, complainant sought EEO counseling
and subsequently filed a formal complaint on April 8, 1998. 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. When complainant failed to
respond within the time period specified in 29 C.F.R. � 1614, the agency
issued a final decision.
In its FAD, the agency concluded that complainant failed to establish
a prima facie case of discrimination and/or retaliation. In the
alternative, the agency concluded that complainant failed to demonstrate
that the agency's legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons were a pretext
for discrimination or retaliation. Complainant makes no new arguments
on appeal. The agency requests that we affirm its FAD.
The record reveals that on February 4, 1998, complainant was interviewed
for the position of Postmaster for Pinole, California. The interview
was conducted by a committee convened for the purpose of identifying the
most qualified candidates. Based upon the committee's recommendation,
qualified candidates were asked for a second interview. The second
interview was conducted by the selecting official. Complainant alleges
that the interview committee discriminated and/or retaliated against
her when they did not certify her for an interview with the selecting
official. Complainant maintains that she was better qualified than
others who were selected for the second interview. The agency, as part
of its investigation, prepared a comparative analysis of the eighteen
employees who participated in the initial interview.
The comparative analysis reports that of other six females interviewed,
two were certified for an interview with the selecting official. Of the
twelve males interviewed, one was selected for an interview with the
selecting official. According to the analysis, there were four candidates
who had prior EEO activity. None of the candidates who had prior EEO
activity were recommended for an interview with the selecting official.
In the absence of direct evidence of discrimination, the allocation of
burdens and order of presentation of proof in a Title VII case alleging
discrimination is a three-step process. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green,
411 U.S. 792, 802-803 (1973). See Loeb v. Textron, 600 F.2d 1003 (1st
Cir. 1979) (applying McDonnell Douglas to age cases). First, complainant
must establish a prima facie case of discrimination by presenting
facts that, if unexplained, reasonably give rise to an inference of
discrimination, i.e., that a prohibited consideration was a factor in
the adverse employment action. McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 802. Next,
the agency must articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason(s)
for its actions. Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450
U.S. 248, 253 (1981). If the agency is successful, then the complainant
must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the legitimate reason
proffered by the agency was a pretext for discrimination. Id. at 256.
Although the initial inquiry in a discrimination case usually focuses
on whether the complainant has established a prima facie case,
following this order of analysis is unnecessary when the agency has
articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its actions. See
Washington v. Department of the Navy, EEOC Petition No. 03900056 (May 31,
1990). In such cases, the inquiry shifts from whether the complainant
has established a prima facie case to whether she has demonstrated by
preponderance of the evidence that the agency's reasons for its actions
merely were a pretext for discrimination. Id.; see also United States
Postal Service Board of Governors v. Aikens, 460 U.S. 711, 714-717 (1983).
Applying these standards to the instant case, we find that the agency has
established a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for complainant's
nonselection. Notably, the agency indicates that complainant was
unable, during the initial interview, to answer important questions,
that she did not complete her application for promotion, and moreover,
that other applicants appeared more able to perform the duties of the
job. While complainant indicates that she is more qualified and that
she actually trained one of the people who was selected for the second
interview, we find that she has failed to demonstrate that discrimination
or retaliation motivated her nonselection. It is complainant's burden
to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the agency's
action was based on prohibited considerations of discrimination, that
is, its articulated reason for its action was not its true reason but
a sham or pretext for discrimination and retaliation. Texas Department
Of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 253 (198 1); St. Mary's
Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S 502 (1993).
Therefore, after a careful review of the record, including arguments
and evidence not specifically addressed in this decision, we AFFIRM the
agency's final decision.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0300)
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); 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 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 14, 2000
____________________________
Date Carlton M. Hadden, Acting Director
Office of Federal Operations
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.