01a00022
07-26-2000
Sandra A. Pace, Complainant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Sandra A. Pace v. United States Postal Service
01A00022
July 26, 2000
.
Sandra A. Pace,
Complainant,
v.
William J. Henderson,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A00022
Agency No. 4H-335-1207-96
Hearing No. 150-98-8272X
DECISION
On September 28, 1999, complainant timely initiated an appeal from
the agency's final action, dated September 2, 1999, concerning her
equal employment opportunity (EEO) 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 alleges she was discriminated against on the basis of race
(black) when she was improperly passed over for consideration for a
career hiring when white employees with lower test scores were hired
instead. For the following reasons, the Commission affirms the agency's
action.
The record reveals that complainant, a Transitional Employee (TE)
Distribution Clerk at the agency's Lakeland Production and Distribution
Center, filed a formal EEO complaint with the agency on September 3, 1996,
alleging that the agency had discriminated against her as referenced
above. At the conclusion of the investigation, complainant received a
copy of the investigative report and requested a hearing before an EEOC
Administrative Judge (AJ). The AJ issued a decision without a hearing,
finding no discrimination.
The Commission notes that McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792,
802-04 (1973) provides the analytical framework for proving employment
discrimination in cases in which disparate treatment is alleged and
no direct evidence of discrimination has been presented. McDonnell
Douglas requires the appellant to first establish a prima facie case.
If complainant succeeds, the agency's burden then is to articulate some
legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its action in order to rebut
the prima facie case of discrimination. Finally, complainant has the
opportunity to show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the agency's
stated reason is a pretext for discrimination. The ultimate burden
of proof that discrimination took place is complainant's. See Texas
Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 253 (1981).
The AJ concluded that complainant failed to establish a prima facie case
of race discrimination. Specifically, the AJ found that complainant
failed to properly complete declination statements that were required
to maintain eligibility for career part-time mail processor positions
and therefore was not available for consideration on the hiring worksheet
used for selection. The AJ determined that the other employees that were
listed on the hiring worksheet were eligible for consideration, but were
ranked below complainant on the register and are white. However, the AJ
determined that complainant failed to demonstrate that similarly situated
employees not in her protected classes were treated differently under
similar circumstances when the facility would only consider employees
on the hiring worksheet for the mail processor positions.
The AJ further concluded that the agency articulated legitimate,
nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions. Specifically, the AJ
determined that by not including a date of availability, which the
declination form mandates, complainant was removed from the eligibility
list. The AJ found that while complainant is a member of a protected
class, complainant did not demonstrate that the agency's reason for not
considering her for the mail processor positions was based on her race.
Because the agency articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for
its actions, the complainant must demonstrate by a preponderance of the
evidence that the agency's reasons for its actions were merely a pretext
for discrimination. See United States Postal Service Board of Governors
v. Aikens, 460 U.S. 711, 713-14 (1983). The AJ found that complainant
did not establish that more likely than not, the agency's articulated
reasons were a pretext to mask unlawful discrimination/retaliation.
In reaching this conclusion, the AJ found that complainant should have
been aware that her failure to provide an availability date would result
in her disqualification from the selection list. Complainant has not
presented evidence to indicate that the agency's explanation about her
non-consideration is not credible or that a discriminatory reason more
likely motivated the agency.
The agency's final action on September 2, 1999 implemented the AJ's
decision. Complainant makes no new contentions on appeal, and the agency
requests that we affirm its final decision.
After a review of the record in its entirety, including consideration
of all statements on appeal, it is the decision of the Commission to
AFFIRM the final agency action dated September 2, 1999, because the AJ's
ultimate finding, that unlawful employment discrimination was not proven
by a preponderance of the evidence, is supported by the record.
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
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:
July 26, 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.