Complainant,v.Megan J. Brennan, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Pacific Area), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Jul 15, 2015

01-2015-0949-0500 (E.E.O.C. Jul. 15, 2015)

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

,
Complainant,

v.

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

Appeal No. 0120150949

Hearing No. 550-2014-00197X

Agency No. 4F-945-0007-14

DECISION
On January 15, 2015, Complainant filed an appeal from the Agency’s December 15, 2014,
final decision concerning her 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., Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973
(Rehabilitation Act), as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 791 et seq., and the Age Discrimination in
Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq

. The Commission
deems the appeal timely and accepts it pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.405(a). For the
following reasons, the Commission AFFIRMS the Agency’s final decision finding no
discrimination.

BACKGROUND
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a Supervisor,
Customer Service at the Agency’s facility in Folsom, California. On November 27, 2013,
Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging that the Agency discriminated against her on the
bases of her race (Caucasian), sex (female), disability (post-traumatic stress disorder), age
(56), and in reprisal for prior protected EEO activity when she was notified on October 16,
2013, that management had not selected her for the position of Manager Royal Oaks Station.

At the conclusion of the investigation, the Agency provided Complainant with a copy of the
report of investigation and notice of her right to request a hearing before an Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission Administrative Judge (AJ). Complainant timely requested a hearing
but subsequently withdrew her request. Consequently, the Agency issued a final decision
0120150949

2
pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.110(b). The decision concluded that Complainant failed to
prove that the Agency subjected her to discrimination as alleged. The Complainant did not
offer arguments on appeal.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
As this is an appeal from a decision issued without a hearing, pursuant to 29 C.F.R.
§ 1614.110(b), the Agency's decision is subject to de novo review by the Commission. 29
C.F.R. § 1614.405(a). See Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive for 29
C.F.R. Part 1614

, at Chapter 9, § VI.A. (November 9, 1999) (explaining that the de novo
standard of review “requires that the Commission examine the record without regard to the
factual and legal determinations of the previous decision maker,” and that EEOC “review the
documents, statements, and testimony of record, including any timely and relevant submissions
of the parties, and . . . issue its decision based on the Commission’s own assessment of the
record and its interpretation of the law”).
To prevail in a disparate treatment claim such as this, 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 or she was subjected to an adverse employment action under circumstances that would
support an inference of discrimination. See Furnco Constr. 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.
See McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 804 n. 14. The burden then shifts to the Agency to
articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its actions. See Tex. Dep’t of Cmty.
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. See
Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 120 S.Ct. 2097 (2000); St.
Mary's Honor Ctr. v. Hicks

, 509 U.S. 502, 519 (1993).
Here, we find that assuming, arguendo, Complainant established a prima facie case of race,
sex, disability, age, and reprisal discrimination, the Agency nonetheless articulated legitimate,
nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions. Specifically, the Agency found that Complainant was
not the most qualified candidate for the position at issue. The record shows that the interviews
for the position at issue were conducted by two Agency officials, S1 and S2. There were four
applicants for this position, including Complainant. S2 stated that he was looking for a
candidate with specific knowledge of the unit and had plans for addressing the facility’s
weaknesses and maintaining its strengths. The record shows that as a Supervisor Customer
Services, Complainant had the lowest set of qualifications entering the interview process.
Each applicant was scored on a matrix from 1-3 (with 3 being the highest) in eight categories.
The selectee scored a 20 overall, and none of her answers were given a 1. Of the four
applicants, Complainant scored the lowest, receiving a 1 in four of the eight categories and a
13 overall.

0120150949

3
According to S1, Complainant began the interview in an “adversarial manner” by challenging
the historic administration of the position for which she was being interviewed. Additionally,
the selecting officials reported that Complainant spoke in “generalities” and relied upon
conclusory statements. In contrast, S2 stated that the selectee’s answers “demonstrated vision,”
and she was able to identify specific plans for her tenure in the position at issue. Both
interviewers found that the selectee demonstrated better focus and knowledge of the facility
than any of the three other candidates, including Complainant. Based on the interview and the
aforementioned scoring system, the Agency chose the selectee. We find that Complainant has
failed to show that the agency’s articulated reasons for its actions were a pretext for unlawful
discrimination.

CONCLUSION
Based on a thorough review of the record and the contentions on appeal we AFFIRM the
Agency’s final decision finding no discrimination.

STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION

(M0610)
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), at 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 77960, Washington, DC 20013. 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).
0120150949

4

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 and also file a civil action, filing a civil action will
terminate the administrative processing of your complaint.

RIGHT TO REQUEST COUNSEL

(Z0610)
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 from the Court that the Court appoint an attorney to represent you
and that the Court also 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
with the Court 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

Date
July 15, 2015