0120072981
09-07-2007
Doris M. Birchett, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Doris M. Birchett,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120072981
Agency No. 4C-270-0097-05
Hearing No. 430-2006-00039X
DECISION
Complainant filed an appeal with this Commission concerning her complaint
of unlawful employment discrimination. Complainant alleged that she
was subjected to discrimination on the bases of race (Caucasian), color
(white), age (date of birth: June 25, 1950), and in retaliation when on
July 9, 2005, complainant learned that she was not recommended for an
interview for the Oak Ridge, North Carolina Postmaster vacancy.
On April 12, 2007, an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ) dismissed
complainant's hearing request. The AJ stated that complainant and her
representative tentatively decided to withdraw complainant's request for
a hearing. On appeal, complainant does not challenge the AJ's dismissal
of the hearing request and we find no reason to alter the AJ's action.
On May 16, 2007, the agency issued a decision finding no discrimination.
Complainant now appeals from that decision.
We find that the agency articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory
reason for not recommending complainant for an interview for the Oak
Ridge, North Carolina Postmaster vacancy. The Responsible Management
Officials stated that complainant was not selected for the position
because complainant was not one of the top ranked candidates based on
weighted rating of her application materials. Review Committee Member
1 (RCM1) stated that the review committee looked at the strengths in
the Situation, Task, Action and Results (STARs) applicants provided in
recommending the candidates considered to "best meet" the requirement
criteria. RCM1 said that complainant was not recommended to the selecting
official for consideration because complainant's application did not
indicate to the review committee that she was a candidate who "best met"
the requirements of the position. PM1 claimed that the experiences
complainant reported were stale, some dating back 15 years and more,
the STAR format was incomplete, and several experiences were repeated
in more than one requirement.
Review Committee Member 2 (RCM2) stated that the review committee did
not recommend complainant for consideration and/or an interview because
complainant was not selected as a top three candidate, and the committee
was instructed to select the top three applicants. PM2 asserted that
it was his opinion as a review committee member that there were three
applicants with better and more complete STARs than complainant.
In summary, the Responsible Management Officials articulated
that the Review Committee Members' selection was based on the
overall qualifications of the individuals applying for the position.
The Responsible Management Official said that the Review Committee gave
primary consideration to the completion of the PS Forms 991, particularly
the STARs that adequately addressed the knowledge, skills and abilities
(KSAs) in the vacancy announcement.
The Commission finds that complainant failed to rebut the agency's
articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for the recommendation
decision. Furthermore, complainant failed to show that her qualifications
for the Oak Ridge, North Carolina Postmaster position were plainly
superior to the recommended candidates' qualifications or that the
agency's actions were motivated by discrimination. Complainant failed
to show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that she was subjected to
discrimination on the bases of race, color or age or in retaliation for
any protected activity.
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
September 7, 2007
__________________
Date
2
0120072981
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P. O. Box 19848
Washington, D.C. 20036
4
0120072981