05A11048
10-05-2001
Carol A. Long, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Carol A. Long v. United States Postal Service
05A11048
10-05-01
.
Carol A. Long,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Request No. 05A11048
Appeal No. 01A03323
Agency No. 4J-493-0021-98
Hearing No. 230-98-4147x
RECONSIDERATION
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) hereby
reopens the decision in Carol A. Long v. United States Postal Service,
EEOC Appeal No. 01A03323 (July 12, 2000) on its own motion. Due to
confusion over agency complaint numbers, a decision in this case was
erroneously issued. We hereby VACATE the previous decision and consider
the case on its merits for the first time.
BACKGROUND
Complainant, at the time of the complaint, was a Business Mail Analyst,
EAS-15, at the agency's Greater Michigan District facility in Grand
Rapids, Michigan. She filed a formal EEO complaint with the agency on
December 19, 1997, claiming that the agency had discriminated against
her on the bases of race (Negro), color (Black) and age (DOB: August 17,
1946) when, on October 7, 1997, she was not selected for the position of
Revenue Assurance Analyst, EAS-18 (the Position). The agency accepted
the complaint for investigation and processing. At the conclusion of the
investigation, the agency issued a copy of its investigative report to
complainant and notified her of her right to request an administrative
hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). Following a hearing,
the AJ issued a decision finding no discrimination.
The AJ concluded that complainant failed to establish prima facie
cases of race, color or age discrimination. Specifically, the AJ found
that complainant was a member of protected classes under 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 of 1967, as amended, 29
U.S.C. � 621 et seq. The AJ also found that complainant applied and
was qualified for the Position. The AJ further found that complainant
failed to demonstrate that the Selectee (white, DOB: October 28, 1965)
was similarly situated to her. She found that the Selectee was an EAS-16
at the time of his selection for the Position, while complainant was an
EAS-15, that the Selectee had a recent college degree, while complainant
did not have a degree, and that the Selectee had more experience in a
higher position at the agency than did complainant.
The AJ further concluded that, assuming complainant had established her
prima facie cases, the agency articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory
reasons for its actions. The AJ found that the applications for the
Position had been reviewed by a Review Board, consisting of three
individuals. The Review Board sent the names of four candidates,
including complainant and the Selectee, listed in alphabetical order,
to the Selecting Official. The Selecting Official, the Acting Manager
of Finance, (white, DOB: July 13, 1958), along with the Supervisor of
Accounting Services (white, DOB: May 29, 1956), interviewed the four
candidates sent to them by the Review Board. After the interviews, both
determined that the Selectee was the best candidate for the Position,
because of his formal education, his U.S. Army Advanced Leadership
Certificate, and his postal education, training and supervisory
experience. The Supervisor of Accounting Services stated that he
recommended the Selectee to the Selecting Official, who made the final
choice. Both felt that the Selectee was the best candidate because he
interviewed very well, and exhibited the greatest potential for success.
Complainant answered all the questions at the interview but needed some
prompting on those outside of her specific area.
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. Complainant had contended that she had more experience
in bulk mail than did the Selectee, and that she met the qualifications
of the Position better than the Selectee. In reaching her conclusion,
the AJ found that the record supported the reasons given for selecting the
Selectee, which complainant had not shown to be pretextual. The AJ issued
a finding of no discrimination. The agency's final action implemented
the AJ's decision.
Complainant makes no new contentions on appeal, and the agency requests
that we affirm its final action.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405(a), all post-hearing factual findings by
an AJ will be upheld if supported by substantial evidence in the record.
Substantial evidence is defined as �such relevant evidence as a reasonable
mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.� Universal
Camera Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board, 340 U.S. 474, 477 (1951)
(citation omitted). A finding regarding whether or not discriminatory
intent existed is a factual finding. See Pullman-Standard Co. v. Swint,
456 U.S. 273, 293 (1982).
After a careful review of the record, the Commission finds that the
AJ's decision properly summarized the relevant facts and referenced
the appropriate regulations, policies, and laws. We discern no basis
to disturb the AJ's decision. Therefore, after a careful review of
the record, including complainant's contentions at the hearing, the
agency's response, and arguments and evidence not specifically addressed
in this decision, we AFFIRM the agency's final action implementing the
AJ's decision. As this is the first time the merits of complainant's
appeal have been addressed, either party may seek reconsideration in
accordance with the rights and time frames stated below.
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
___10-05-01_______________
Date