Lawrence B.,1 Complainant,v.Megan J. Brennan, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Great Lakes Area), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Jun 12, 2019

0120181508 (E.E.O.C. Jun. 12, 2019)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013

Lawrence B.,1
Complainant,

v.

Megan J. Brennan,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Great Lakes Area),
Agency.

Appeal No. 0120181508

Hearing No. 440-2016-00022X

Agency No. 4J-606-0071-15

DECISION

Complainant filed an appeal with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or
Commission), pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.403(a), from the Agency’s March 7, 2018, final order
concerning his equal employment opportunity (EEO) complaint alleging employment
discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), as amended, 42
U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. For the following reasons, the Commission AFFIRMS the Agency’s final
order finding no discrimination.

BACKGROUND

At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a Postmaster, EAS-22,
at the Agency’s facility in Glen Ellyn, Illinois. On July 16, 2015, Complainant filed an EEO
complaint alleging that the Agency discriminated against him on the bases of his sex (male) and
in reprisal for prior protected EEO activity when on April 8, 2015, he was not selected for the
position of Manager Customer Services, EAS-24, at the Fort Dearborn Station.

1 This case has been randomly assigned a pseudonym which will replace Complainant’s name
when the decision is published to non-parties and the Commission’s website.
0120181508

2
At the conclusion of the investigation, the Agency provided Complainant with a copy of the report
of investigation and notice of his right to request a hearing before an Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission Administrative Judge (AJ). Complainant requested a hearing. A hearing
was held on September 29, 2016, and a decision was issued on February 20, 2018. The Agency
subsequently issued a final order adopting the AJ’s finding that Complainant failed to prove that
the Agency subjected him to discrimination as alleged.

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). An AJ's conclusions of law are subject to a de
novo standard of review, whether or not a hearing was held.

To prevail in a disparate treatment claim, Complainant must satisfy the three-part evidentiary
scheme fashioned by the Supreme Court in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792
(1973). Complainant must initially establish a prima facie case by demonstrating that he was
subjected to an adverse employment action under circumstances that would support an inference
of discrimination. Furnco Construction Co. v. Waters, 438 U.S. 567, 576 (1978). Proof of a prima
facie case will vary depending on the facts of the particular case. McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at
804 n. 14. The burden then shifts to the Agency to articulate a legitimate, non-discriminatory
reason for its actions. Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 253
(1981). To ultimately prevail, Complainant must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that
the Agency’s explanation is pretextual. Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., 530 U.S.
133 (2000).

Here, we find that assuming, arguendo, Complainant established a prima facie case of sex and
reprisal discrimination, the Agency nonetheless articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons
for its actions. Specifically, the record shows that Complainant was one of six applicants for the
position at issue, and one of three applicants chosen to be interviewed. Following an interview by
a three-member panel, the selecting official (SO) offered the position to the selectee. The SO
testified that she chose the selectee based on the selectee’s experience and demonstrated
performance while detailed into the position at issue. The SO further testified that although
Complainant did well in his interview, the selectee’s excellent performance while detailed into the
position at issue made her the best qualified candidate. We note that the record does not show that
Complainant ever requested to be detailed into the position at issue; nor did he show that his
qualifications were superior to those of the selectee. Accordingly, we concur with the AJ’s
conclusion that Complainant failed to show that he was subjected to unlawful sex or reprisal
discrimination or that the Agency’s articulated reasons for his nonselection were pretextual. The
AJ’s decision is supported by substantial evidence in the record.

0120181508

3
CONCLUSION

The Agency’s final order finding no discrimination is AFFIRMED.

STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0617)
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. A party shall have
twenty (20) calendar days of receipt of another party’s timely request for reconsideration in
which to submit a brief or statement in opposition. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.405; Equal Employment
Opportunity Management Directive for 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 (EEO MD-110), at Chap. 9 § VII.B
(Aug. 5, 2015). All requests and arguments must be submitted to the Director, Office of Federal
Operations, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Complainant’s request may be
submitted via regular mail to P.O. Box 77960, Washington, DC 20013, or by certified mail to 131
M Street, NE, Washington, DC 20507. 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 agency’s request must be submitted
in digital format via the EEOC’s Federal Sector EEO Portal (FedSEP). See 29 C.F.R. §
1614.403(g). 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 (S0610)
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
0120181508

4
and also file a civil action, filing a civil action will terminate the administrative processing of
your complaint.
RIGHT TO REQUEST COUNSEL (Z0815)
If you want to file a civil action but cannot pay the fees, costs, or security to do so, you may request
permission from the court to proceed with the civil action without paying these fees or costs.
Similarly, if you cannot afford an attorney to represent you in the civil action, you may request the
court to appoint an attorney for you. You must submit the requests for waiver of court costs or
appointment of an attorney directly to the court, not the Commission. The court has the sole
discretion to grant or deny these types of requests. Such requests do not alter the time limits for
filing a civil action (please read the paragraph titled Complainant’s Right to File a Civil Action for
the specific time limits).
FOR THE COMMISSION:

______________________________ Carlton M. Hadden’s signature
Carlton M. Hadden, Director
Office of Federal Operations

June 12, 2019
Date