01a00519
02-18-2000
Elizabeth B. Willis, Complainant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Elizabeth B. Willis, )
Complainant, )
)
v. ) Appeal No. 01A00519
) Agency No. 4D-230-0058-98
William J. Henderson, ) Hearing No. 120-98-9959X
Postmaster General, )
United States Postal Service, )
Agency. )
_______________________________ )
DECISION
The Commission finds that the agency's October 18, 1999 decision finding
that the agency did not discriminate against complainant in retaliation
for complainant's prior EEO activity was proper.<1>
In the complaint complainant alleged that she was discriminated against
in retaliation for prior EEO activity when:
The agency twice reposted the EAS-18 Kilmarnock, Virginia Postmaster
vacancy to expand the geographic scope of consideration for each posting
in order to avoid interviewing and hiring complainant for the position.
On December 5, 1997, the agency refused to interview and hire complainant
for the EAS-18 Kilmarnock, Virginia Postmaster vacancy.
Complainant requested a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge.
An administrative judge held a hearing and issued decision finding no
discrimination.
The administrative judge found that the agency reasonably decided to
repost the vacancy to allow more qualified people to apply (by expanding
the area of consideration) after the initial posting resulted in three
of the five qualified applicants being considered as unacceptable to the
Recommending Official. The administrative judge also found that only one
new applicant applied to the reposting and that she was disqualified. The
administrative judge found that it was reasonable for the agency to again
expand the area of consideration for the vacancy by reposting the position
to attract more qualified candidates. The administrative judge found
that the agency articulated legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for
not choosing complainant to be one of the five candidates for interviews.
The administrative judge found that the agency reasonably separated the
candidates by choosing five who had recent Postmaster experience (at the
EAS-18 level or above). The administrative judge found that four of the
candidates interviewed had the sought after experience that complainant
did not have. The administrative judge found that the other candidate
(of the five) who was interviewed was more qualified than complainant
because he was the local candidate and because he was a current Postmaster
with more recent Postmaster experience than complainant.
In the agency's October 18, 1999 decision the agency concurred with the
conclusions of the administrative judge and also found no discrimination.
After reviewing the record, the Commission finds that the administrative
judge correctly determined that complainant failed to show by a
preponderance of the evidence that she was discriminated against in
retaliation for her prior EEO activity.
The agency's decision finding no discrimination is AFFIRMED.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M1199)
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
64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659 (1999) (to be codified and hereinafter
referred to as 29 C.F.R. �1614.405). 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 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,661 (1999)
(to be codified and hereinafter referred to as 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 (S1199)
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:
February 18, 2000
DATE
Carlton
M.
Hadden,
Acting
Director
Office of Federal Operations
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
For timeliness purposes, the Commission will presume that this decision
was received within five (5) calendar days of mailing. I certify that
the decision was mailed to complainant, complainant's representative
(if applicable), and the agency on:
_____________________ _________________________ Date
1On November 9, 1999, revised regulations governing the EEOC's federal
sector complaint process went into effect. These regulations apply to all
Federal sector EEO complaints pending at any stage in the administrative
process. Consequently, the Commission will apply the revised regulations
found at 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644 (1999), where applicable, in deciding the
present appeal. The regulations, as amended, may also be found at the
Commission's website at WWW.EEOC.GOV.