01982941
01-15-1999
Patricia A. Anno, Appellant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (Allegheny/Mid-Atlantic Region), Agency.
Patricia A. Anno v. United States Postal Service
01982941
January 15, 1999
Patricia A. Anno, )
Appellant, )
)
v. ) Appeal No. 01982941
) Agency No. 4D-200-1375-95
William J. Henderson, ) Hearing No. 120-96-5561X
Postmaster General, )
United States Postal Service, )
(Allegheny/Mid-Atlantic Region), )
Agency. )
___________________________________)
DECISION
On March 4, 1998, Patricia A. Anno (appellant) timely appealed the final
decision of the United States Postal Service (agency), dated February 18,
1998, which concluded she had not been discriminated against in violation
of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. �2000e
et seq., and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) of 1967,
as amended, 29 U.S.C. �621 et seq. In her complaint, appellant alleged
that agency officials had discriminated against her on the bases of her
sex (female) and age (57)<1> when she was not selected for the position
of Postmaster, Marbury, Maryland, Post Office. This appeal is accepted
in accordance with the provisions of EEOC Order No. 960.001.
At the time this matter arose, appellant was employed by the agency at
its Indian Head, Maryland, Post Office as a Window/Distribution Clerk.
She had 27 years of service with the agency. In December 1994, the
agency posted a vacancy announcement for the position of Postmaster,
Marbury, Maryland, Post Office. Appellant and three other agency
employees (female, age 36; female, age 43; and male, age 42) applied for
the position. The applications were reviewed and all four candidates
were interviewed by the Manager of Post Office Operations (male, age 48)
("Selecting Official"). The Selecting Official stated that he asked all
the candidates the same questions during the interview, found them all
to be qualified for the position, and was unaware of their relative ages.
He said he chose a candidate other than appellant (female, age 36) because
he judged her to be the best qualified for the position. He explained
that, during the interview, the selectee was more articulate and better
versed in the agency's corporate goals than appellant. In addition,
he said he was impressed that the selectee had taken the initiative to
visit the Marbury Post Office and was able to articulate recommendations
for generating additional revenue and better serving the community.
On October 17, 1995, appellant filed a formal EEO complaint with the
agency, alleging that the agency had discriminated against her as
referenced above. The agency accepted the complaint and conducted
an investigation. At the conclusion of the investigation, appellant
requested an administrative hearing before an Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (EEOC) administrative judge (AJ).
On January 30, 1998, following a hearing at which two witnesses testified,
the AJ issued a decision concluding no discrimination had occurred
on either of the bases alleged. In that decision, the AJ first found
appellant failed to establish a prima facie case of sex discrimination
because the selectee was of the same gender. With regard to appellant
age discrimination claim, the AJ concluded that the agency successfully
rebutted any initial inference of discrimination raised by appellant
with its articulation of legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for
the selection made. The AJ went on to hold that appellant failed
to meet her burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence,
that the agency's articulated reasons for its actions in this matter
were unbelievable or that its actions were more likely motivated by
discriminatory factors.
On February 18, 1998, the agency adopted the findings and conclusions
of the AJ and issued a final decision finding no discrimination. It is
from this decision that appellant now appeals.
After a careful review of the record in its entirety, the Commission finds
that the AJ's recommended decision sets forth the relevant facts and
properly analyzes the case using the appropriate regulations, policies
and laws. Based on the evidence of record, the Commission discerns
no basis to disturb the AJ's finding of no discrimination. Nothing
proffered by appellant on appeal differs significantly from the arguments
raised before, and given full consideration by, the AJ. Accordingly,
it is the decision of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to
AFFIRM the agency's final decision which adopted the AJ's finding of 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. � l6l4.604(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. 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:
Jan 15, 1999
__________________ _______________________________
DATE Ronnie Blumenthal, Director
Office of Federal Operations
1 In her formal complaint, appellant only alleged discrimination on the
basis of her age. However, during the investigation into her complaint,
appellant additionally raised allegations of sex discrimination.
The agency has addressed both bases in its final decision.