Patricia A. Anno, Appellant,v.William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (Allegheny/Mid-Atlantic Region), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionJan 15, 1999
01982941 (E.E.O.C. Jan. 15, 1999)

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.