01a51986
05-16-2005
Daniel W. Haas, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Daniel W. Haas v. United States Postal Service
01A51986
May 16, 2005
.
Daniel W. Haas,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A51986
Agency No. 1G-772-0034-03
Hearing No. 330-2004-00126X
DECISION
Complainant appeals to the Commission from the agency's December 16, 2004
decision finding no discrimination. Complainant alleges discrimination
on the bases of race (Caucasian), national origin (Anglo-Saxon), sex
(male), color (white), and age (date of birth: January 26, 1948) when,
by letter dated May 30, 2003, complainant was notified that he was not the
successful candidate for the position of Manager, Distribution Operations,
EAS-22. Without holding a hearing, an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ)
issued a decision on December 13, 2004, finding that complainant had
not been discriminated against. Specifically, the AJ found that the
agency presented legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its action,
which complainant failed to rebut. The agency, on December 16, 2004,
issued a decision fully implementing the AJ's decision. Complainant now
appeals from that decision.
The Commission's regulations allow an AJ to issue a decision without a
hearing when he or she finds that there is no genuine issue of material
fact. 29 C.F.R. � 1614.109(g). This regulation is patterned after the
summary judgment procedure set forth in Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure. 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's function is not to weigh the evidence but rather to determine
whether there are genuine issues for trial. Id. at 249. 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. at 255. An 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,
an AJ may properly consider summary judgment only upon a determination
that the record has been adequately developed for summary disposition.
We find that the agency articulated legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons
for the nonselection. The record reveals that a review committee was
chosen to review the written applications of twenty-four applicants.
The review committee then selected those candidates it determined
were best qualified for the position and forwarded that list to
the selecting official. None of the review committee members had a
working relationship with complainant. In making its recommendation,
the committee did not interview applicants, but relied solely on
their written applications, including their thoroughness and their
ability to articulate their knowledge, skills and abilities (�KSAs�)
as compared with the requirements of the position. The candidates'
experience, training and detail accomplishments were also important.
Complainant did not make the best-qualified list and, therefore, the
selecting official did not interview him or consider him for the vacancy.
The Manager of Human Resources, one of the committee members,
elaborated that complainant's application was not that strong in that:
1) complainant had served in his position a number of years and was
not currently being utilized on detail to higher level positions;
and 2) the knowledge/skills/ability for the requirements were not
clearly articulated by complainant. The Manager of Human Resources
reported that complainant didn't clearly articulate or develop his KSAs.
The Manager of Human Resources commented that complainant's �story�
was sometimes difficult to follow as complainant's answers were not
clear and not always complete. The Manager of Human Resources noted
that complainant's education, training, higher level details and
other projects were dated. For example, he had served in his EAS-19,
MDO position for a number of years and had not been used recently on
a detail to higher level positions. In contrast, the Manager of Human
Resources said that the recommended individuals had either been promoted
to a level 21 or 22 or were currently acting in positions at that level.
While the Manager of Human Resources considered complainant qualified,
she rated other candidates higher based on the likelihood of their
success in the position.
Complainant failed to rebut the agency's articulated legitimate,
nondiscriminatory reasons for the selection decision. Furthermore,
complainant failed to show that his qualifications for the position were
plainly superior to the selectee's qualifications or that the agency's
action was motivated by discrimination. Complainant failed to show,
by a preponderance of the evidence, that he was discriminated against
on the bases of race, national origin, sex, color or age.
The agency's decision finding no discrimination is AFFIRMED.
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
May 16, 2005
__________________
Date