01983503
03-22-2000
Ronnie H. Beck, Complainant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (Southeast/Southwest Region), Agency.
Ronnie H. Beck v. United States Postal Service
01983503
March 22, 2000
Ronnie H. Beck, )
Complainant, )
) Appeal No. 01983503
v. ) Agency No. 4G720115996
)
)
William J. Henderson, )
Postmaster General, )
United States Postal Service, )
(Southeast/Southwest Region), )
Agency. )
)
DECISION
Complainant filed a timely appeal from a final agency decision (FAD)
concerning his complaint of unlawful employment discrimination on
the bases of sex (male), age (48), and physical disability (status
post myocardial infarction heart damage and three finger amputation
from left hand), in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. � 2000e et seq.; the Age Discrimination in
Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), as amended, 29 U.S.C. � 621 et seq.; and
the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended,<1> 29 U.S.C. � 791, et seq.<2>
Complainant alleges he was discriminated against when he was not selected
for the position of EAS-15 Postmaster at Holly Grove, Arkansas Post Office
(Position) on June 8, 1996. 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).
For the following reasons, the Commission AFFIRMS the FAD as CLARIFIED.
The record reveals that during the relevant time, complainant was
employed as an EAS-13 Postmaster of the agency's Biscoe, Arkansas
postal facility. Complainant alleges that his qualifications for the
Position were far superior to that of the selectee (SE), a younger female
EAS-11 Postmaster with no disabilities, and that the selecting official
(SO) did not select him due to discrimination. Complainant sought EEO
counseling and, subsequently, filed a complaint. At the conclusion of
the investigation, the agency issued its FAD, finding no discrimination.
Although the FAD did not specifically address whether complainant
established prima facie cases of sex or age discrimination, it
found that he failed to produce any evidence to demonstrate that his
non-selection was motivated by discriminatory animus on these bases.
Regarding the disability claim, the FAD determined that SO did not
consider complainant to be disabled because of his medical conditions,
and also that complainant's medical conditions were not a factor in
the selection process, concluding that complainant failed to show
discriminatory animus on this basis as well.
On appeal, complainant contends that his disabilities were well known to
the SO, and that the agency was on notice of his disabilities by virtue of
the medical records he had on file during the 28 years of his employment.
Complainant also contends that SO has never promoted an individual with
disabilities, but he presents no evidence to support this statement.
The agency requests that we affirm its FAD.
After a careful review of the record, based on McDonnell Douglas
Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973), and Loeb v. Textron, 600 F.2d 1003
(1st Cir. 1979), the Commission finds that complainant established a
prima facie case of sex and age discrimination because he was qualified
for the Position, but not selected in favor of a younger female.
We CLARIFY the FAD accordingly. However, even assuming that complainant
established a prima facie case of disability discrimination, we agree
with the FAD's conclusion that complainant produced no evidence to suggest
that SO's selection was motivated by discriminatory animus toward him.
Our review of the record shows that complainant and two other applicants
for the Position were recommended to SO as being the "best qualified."
Each of the three was interviewed by SO, who testified that he considered
the qualifications of all three, and that it was his "collective judgment"
that SE was the best qualified for the Position, and selected her for
this reason. SO also testified that the competition for the Position
was keen, suggesting that the selection was difficult. Notwithstanding
complainant's contention that he was far better qualified for the
Position, we note that he fails to provide any evidence to support
this claim.
Based on our review of complainant's and SE's pertinent qualifications
for the Position, we find that each had essentially comparable experience
as Postmasters, but that SE had superior educational qualifications.
Therefore, we find that complainant's qualifications were not "plainly
superior" to that of SE's, and that discriminatory motivation cannot be
inferred for this reason. Vanek v. Department of Treasury, EEOC Request
No. 05940906 (January 16, 1997). Moreover, it is well established that
employers have greater latitude when selecting its managers, and the EEO
process is not to be used as a substitute for a management decision which
may appear unfair, but which was not motivated by discriminatory animus.
See Loving v. Department of Treasury, EEOC Appeal No. 01974454 (July 2,
1999); Lloyd v. Department of Justice, EEOC Appeal No. 01952370 (May
6, 1997).
Therefore, after a careful review of the record, including complainant's
contentions on appeal, the agency's response, and arguments and evidence
not specifically addressed in this decision, we AFFIRM the FAD as
CLARIFIED.
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).
COMPLAINANT'S RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (S1199)
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:
3/22/00
Date Carlton M. 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 Equal Employment Assistant
1The Rehabilitation Act was amended in 1992 to apply the standards in the
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) to complaints of discrimination
by federal employees or applicants for employment. Since that time,
the ADA regulations set out at 29 C.F.R. Part 1630 apply to complaints
of disability discrimination. These regulations can be found on EEOC's
website at WWW.EEOC.GOV.
2On 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.