01A10520
05-15-2001
Norman Wood, Complainant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (Pacific Area) Agency.
Norman Wood v. United States Postal Service
01A10520
May 15, 2001
.
Norman Wood,
Complainant,
v.
William J. Henderson,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
(Pacific Area)
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A10520
Agency No. 4F-956-0086-98 & 4F-956-0078-99
Hearing No. 370-98-X2750 & 370-99-X2704
DECISION
Complainant timely initiated an appeal from the agency's final decision
concerning his equal employment opportunity (EEO) complaint of unlawful
employment discrimination in violation of Title VII. The appeal is
accepted pursuant to 29 C.F.R. �1614.405. Complainant alleges he was
discriminated against on the basis of race (Black) and reprisal for
prior EEO activity when:
he was not selected for the position of Postal Business Center Manager,
EAS-20, on March 23, 1998; and
he became aware that another manager received training he had been
denied and that manager's detail to a management position exceeded 90
days whereas, his detail to the same position was limited to 90 days.
At the time complainant filed the instant complaint, he was a Senior
Account Representative, EAS-18, in the agency's Sacramento District.
Complainant filed separate formal complaints with the agency dated May
11, 1998 and June 7, 1999, alleging that the agency had discriminated
against him 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). On December 22,
1999, the AJ consolidated both cases pursuant to 29 C.F.R. �1614.606.
In keeping with EEOC regulation 29 C.F.R. �1614.109, the AJ also issued
a decision without holding a hearing.
With respect to the first complaint which deals with complainant's
non-selection for the Postal Business Center Manager position (hereinafter
referred to as Complaint #1), the AJ held that complainant failed
to establish pretext and thus, was not subject to race discrimination.
With respect to the complaint dealing with the denial of training and the
length of complainant's detail, (hereinafter referred to as Complaint
#2), the AJ held that complainant did not establish a prima facie case
and was not subject to race discrimination.
In reaching her finding with respect to Complaint #1, the AJ determined
that the Selecting Official selected the comparative employee for the
position because his responses to the interview questions �were more
focused and thorough than [complainant's] and he presented himself
more favorably during the interview.� In disposing of Complaint #2,
the AJ found that although Complainant was treated differently from
the comparative employee in relation to the length of his detail and the
denial of his request for Critical Skills training (hereinafter CST), they
were not similarly situated for comparative purposes. In this regard,
the AJ found that the comparative employee's detail was extended because
no other employee was available to take the Business Customer Relations
(BCR) position at the end of the comparative's detail. The AJ also found
that the comparative employee was able to attend CST because there was a
change in national policy which allowed detailees to attend such training.
In conclusion, the AJ found that complainant failed to show that he was
subject to discrimination or reprisal in relation to both complaints.
In a final agency decision dated September 20, 2000, the agency adopted
the decision of the AJ.
CONTENTIONS ON APPEAL
On appeal, complainant contends that the AJ did not take into
consideration his request for documents pertaining to the Promotion Review
Board in Complaint #1. Complainant also argues that the interview process
was designed to benefit the comparative employee who was ultimately
selected for the position. He also argues that the interview was biased
because the responsible management official was on her computer during the
interview and had to be reminded that it was her turn to ask questions.
In its appeal statement, the agency indicates that it stands by the
finding in its final agency decision.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
The U.S. Supreme Court has held that summary judgment is appropriate where
a court determines that, given the substantive legal and evidentiary
standards that apply to the case, there exists no genuine issue of
material fact. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255
(1986). In ruling on a motion for summary judgment, a court does not
sit as a fact finder. Id. The evidence of the non moving party must
be believed at the summary judgment stage and all justifiable inferences
must be drawn in the non moving party's favor. Id. A disputed issue of
fact is "genuine" if the evidence is such that a reasonable fact finder
could find in favor of the non-moving party. Celotex v. Catrett, 477
U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986); Oliver v. Digital Equip. Corp., 846 F. 2D 103,
105 (1st Cir. 1988). A fact is "material" if it has the potential to
affect the outcome of the case. If a case can only be resolved by
weighing conflicting evidence, summary judgment is not appropriate.
In the context of an administrative proceeding under Title VII, an AJ
may properly consider summary judgment only upon a determination that
the record has been adequately developed for summary disposition.
In the case at hand, we find that the AJ acted properly when she issued
a summary finding without holding a hearing given that the case was
fully investigated and there existed no genuine issue of material fact.
In this regard, we find that complainant does not rebut the agency's
position that it selected the comparative employee for the Postal
Business Manager position because the comparative employee was more
thorough and direct in answering the interview questions and because the
comparative employee had more supervisory experience than Complainant.
Moreover, we find that Complainant did not challenge any of the reasons
articulated by the agency for its actions in Complaint #2. The agency's
position that it was able to extend the comparative employee's detail
because there were no other managers available to encumber the position
and its explanation that it was able to send the comparative employee
to Critical Skills training because of a change in its national policy
stand uncontroverted. We discern no basis to disturb the AJ's decision.
The AJ's decision properly summarized the relevant facts and referenced
the appropriate regulations, policies, and laws. 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 agency's final decision.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0900)
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
5/15/01
__________________
Date