01a03996
05-21-2002
Winton Traylor, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Winton Traylor v. United States Postal Service
01A03996
05-21-02
.
Winton Traylor,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A03996
Agency No. 1H-361-0005-99
DECISION
On May 15, 2000, Winton Traylor (hereinafter referred to as complainant)
filed a timely appeal from the April 17, 2000, final decision of the
United States Postal Service (hereinafter referred to as the agency)
concerning a 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. The appeal is timely filed (see 29 C.F.R. � 1614.402(a))
and is accepted in accordance with 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405.
Complainant alleged discrimination based on race (white), sex, and
reprisal when he was not considered and interviewed for the position of
Retail Operations Analyst, EAS-19. The agency convened a review panel,
which examined the applications, including the applicants' answers to
the KSAs, and forwarded the best qualified candidates for selection.
The candidates considered for selection included four white females
and one black female; the selectee was a black female. With regard to
complainant's application, the panel members stated that his answers
demonstrated that he did not meet the qualifications for the position
and that he was not among the best qualified.
In its final decision, the agency applied the analysis of McDonnell
Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973), and found that it did not
discriminate against complainant. However, as noted by complainant in
his appeal statement, the decision erred in identifying the selectee
as a black male, thus dismissing complainant's claim of discrimination
based on sex. In addition, complainant contended that he was better
qualified than the selectee and that the panel did not explain how his
KSA answers were deficient.
Complainant's claims of disparate treatment based on race, sex, and
reprisal are properly examined under the tripartite analysis in McDonnell
Douglas Corporation v. Green, supra; Hochstadt v. Worcester Foundation
for Experimental Biology, Inc., 425 F. Supp. 318, 324 (D. Mass.),
aff'd, 545 F.2d 222 (1st Cir. 1976). For complainant to prevail, he
must first 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; Furnco
Construction Corp. v. Waters, 438 U.S. 567 (1978). After complainant
has established a prima facie case, the burden then shifts to the agency
to articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its actions.
Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 253
(1981). If the agency is successful, the burden reverts back to the
complainant to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that
the agency's reasons were a pretext for discrimination. At all times,
complainant retains the burden of persuasion, and it is his obligation
to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the agency acted on the
basis of a prohibited reason. U.S. Postal Service Board of Governors
v. Aikens, 460 U.S. 711, 715-716 (1983).
This established order of analysis in discrimination cases, in which the
first step normally consists of determining the existence of a prima
facie case, need not be followed in all cases. Where the agency has
articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the personnel
action at issue, the factual inquiry can proceed directly to the third
step of the McDonnell Douglas analysis, the ultimate issue of whether
complainant has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the agency's
actions were motivated by discrimination. U.S. Postal Service Board
of Governors v. Aikens, 460 U.S. at 713-714; Hernandez v. Department
of Transportation, EEOC Request No. 05900159 (June 28, 1990); Peterson
v. Department of Health and Human Services, EEOC Request No. 05900467
(June 8, 1990).
Here, complainant has not demonstrated that the agency's reasons for
his exclusion from further consideration for the position were based on
pretext or discriminatory factors, nor has he demonstrated that he was
clearly more qualified than other candidates or the selectee. Further,
complainant's contention that he was more qualified as demonstrated by
his responses to the KSAs are not supported by the record.
Finally, although the agency erred in identifying the selectee as a black
male, because the analysis for claims of discrimination based on race
and sex involved the same analytic approach, we find that complainant
was not harmed.
CONCLUSION
After a thorough review of the record, including statements and arguments
not addressed herein, we find that the preponderance of the evidence
of record does not establish that discrimination occurred. Accordingly,
the agency's decision is AFFIRMED, as modified herein.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0701)
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 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 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 (S0900)
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:
______________________________
Carlton M. Hadden, Director
Office of Federal Operations
_____05-21-02_____________
Date