Gerald L. Flunder, Appellant,v.William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (Pacific/Western Region), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionMar 19, 1999
01983376 (E.E.O.C. Mar. 19, 1999)

01983376

03-19-1999

Gerald L. Flunder, Appellant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (Pacific/Western Region), Agency.


Gerald L. Flunder, )

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Appeal No. 01983376

) Agency Nos. 4E-852-1010-95,

William J. Henderson, ) 4E-852-1175-96

Postmaster General, ) Hearing Nos. 350-96-8059X,

United States Postal Service, ) 350-96-8273X

(Pacific/Western Region), )

Agency. )

______________________________)

DECISION

On March 24, 1998, Gerald L. Flunder (appellant) timely appealed the

final decision of the United States Postal Service (agency), dated March

9, 1998, which concluded that he had not been discriminated against in

violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended,

42 U.S.C. �2000e et seq., and the Age Discrimination in Employment

Act (ADEA) of 1967, as amended, 29 U.S.C. �621 et seq. In Agency Case

No. 4E-852-1010-95, appellant had alleged that officials at the agency's

Arrowhead Station in Glendale, Arizona, discriminated against him on

the bases of his race/color (Black), sex (male) and age (DOB: 10-07-60)

when he was not hired as a Rural Carrier Associate (RCA) in August 1994.

In Agency Case No. 4E-852-1175-96, appellant alleged that he had been

unlawfully retaliated against for engaging in prior EEO activity when

he was terminated as a RCA at the Chandler, Arizona, Post Office on May

7, 1996. This appeal is accepted in accordance with the provisions of

EEOC Order No. 960.001.

The evidence of record establishes that, in 1994, appellant was among

fourteen applicants for an RCA position at the Arrowhead Station who

were selected from a hiring register to be interviewed. Following the

interviews, nine candidates (4 male/5 female; 7 Caucasian/2 Native

American) were selected for the positions. Appellant was not among

those selected. On November 28, 1994, appellant filed a formal EEO

complaint with the agency, alleging that the agency had discriminated

against him as referenced above with respect to his nonselection. The

agency accepted the complaint and conducted an investigation.

While this complaint was pending, appellant was hired as an RCA at

the Chandler, Arizona, Post Office in March 1996. By letter dated May

7, 1996, appellant was terminated from this position after a routine

background check indicated that he had submitted false information on

his employment application. On August 13, 1996, appellant filed his

second EEO complaint alleging unlawful retaliation as referenced above.

The agency also accepted this complaint and conducted an investigation.

At the conclusion of the investigation into each complaint, appellant

requested an administrative hearing before an Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission (EEOC) administrative judge (AJ). The hearings were held on

the complaints on July 21, 1997, and December 11, 1997, respectively.

On August 15, 1997, the AJ issued a decision from the bench finding

appellant had been discriminated against on the bases of his race/color

and sex when he was not hired for the RCA position at the Arrowhead

Station in August 1994. With respect to appellant's claim of age

discrimination, the AJ concluded that appellant was under forty years of

age and, therefore, outside the protections of the ADEA. The AJ held her

decision on the appropriate remedies to recommend in abeyance until she

had issued a decision on appellant's 1996 termination case. On December

31, 1997, the AJ concluded that there was insufficient evidence of

retaliation with respect to appellant's termination in May 1996 from his

Rural Carrier position at the Chandler, Arizona, Post Office. At the

same time, she recommended a series of actions for the agency to take to

remedy appellant for its discriminatory actions in the 1994 hiring issue.

In reaching the finding of race/color and sex discrimination with respect

to the hiring issue, the AJ noted that although the selecting official

testified that the selectees were generally chosen because they did better

in the interview process than appellant, he could not remember two of the

female selectees (both Caucasian) and, therefore, could not articulate why

they were selected as opposed to appellant. As a result, the AJ concluded

that the agency failed to meet its burden of articulating legitimate,

nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions with respect to these two

selectees with sufficient clarity and specificity to adequately rebut

the inference of discrimination raised by appellant's prima facie case.

On March 9, 1998, the agency issued its final decision, rejecting the AJ's

recommended finding of race/color and sex discrimination with respect

to the 1994 hiring complaint. It is from this decision that appellant

now appeals.<1>

After a careful review of the record in its entirety, the Commission

finds that the AJ's recommended decision sets forth the relevant facts

and properly analyzes the appropriate regulations, policies and laws.

Based on the evidence of record, the Commission discerns no basis

to disturb the AJ's finding of race/color and sex discrimination with

respect to the agency's decision not to select appellant for an RCA

position in 1994. Based on its review of the record, the Commission

concurs with the AJ's finding that the agency failed to successfully

rebut the inference of discrimination raised by appellant's prima facie

case because its explanation for why two Caucasian female candidates were

selected rather than appellant was so lacking in clarity and specificity

that it deprived appellant of a full and fair opportunity to demonstrate

that the proffered explanation was a pretext for discrimination.

See Brooks v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Request No. 05930625

(May 19, 1994); Parker v. United States Postal Service, EEOC Request

No. 05900110 (April 30, 1990). Nothing proffered by agency in its final

decision or on appeal differs significantly from the arguments raised

before, and given full consideration by, the AJ.

Accordingly, it is the decision of the Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission to REVERSE that portion of the agency's final decision

which rejected the AJ's finding of race/color and sex discrimination

with respect to appellant's nonselection for an RCA position in 1994.

In order to remedy appellant for its discriminatory actions, the agency

shall comply with the following Order.

ORDER

The agency is ORDERED to take the following remedial action:

(A) Within sixty (60) calendar days of the date this decision

becomes final, the agency is directed to award appellant back pay

and benefits, with interest, from the date he should have been

hired absent the agency's discriminatory actions (August 26, 1994),

until the date he was actually hired by the agency into an equivalent

position (March 16, 1996). The agency shall determine the appropriate

amount of back pay, interest and other benefits due appellant,

pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.501, no later than sixty (60) calendar

days after the date this decision becomes final. Interim earning may

be deducted from the back pay award. The appellant shall cooperate in

the agency's efforts to compute the amount of back pay and benefits

due, and shall provide all relevant information requested by the

agency. If there is a dispute regarding the exact amount of back pay

and/or benefits, the agency shall issue a check to the appellant

for the undisputed amount within sixty (60) calendar days of the

date the agency determines the amount it believes to be due. The

appellant may petition for enforcement or clarification of the amount

in dispute. The petition for clarification or enforcement must be

filed with the Compliance Officer, at the address referenced in the

statement entitled "Implementation of the Commission's Decision."

(B) Training shall be provided to the agency officials responsible

for the agency's actions in this matter on the obligations and duties

imposed by Title VII.

(C) The agency shall post at the Arrowhead Station, Glendale, Arizona,

copies of the attached notice. Copies of the notice, after being signed

by the agency's duly authorized representative, shall be posted by the

agency within thirty (30) calendar days of the date this decision

becomes final, and shall remain posted for sixty (60) consecutive

days, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to

employees are customarily posted. The agency shall take reasonable

steps to ensure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered

by any other material. The original signed notice is to be submitted to

the Compliance Officer at the address cited in the paragraph entitled

"Implementation of the Commission's Decision," within ten (10) calendar

days of the expiration of the posting period.

(D) The agency is further directed to submit a report of compliance, as

provided in the statement entitled "Implementation of the Commission's

Decision." The report shall include supporting documentation of the

agency's calculation of back pay and other benefits due appellant,

including evidence that the corrective action has been implemented.

ATTORNEY'S FEES (H1092)

If appellant has been represented by an attorney (as defined by

29 C.F.R. �1614.501 (e)(1)(iii)), he/she is entitled to an award of

reasonable attorney's fees incurred in the processing of the complaint.

29 C.F.R. �1614.501 (e). The award of attorney's fees shall be paid

by the agency. The attorney shall submit a verified statement of fees

to the agency -- not to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission,

Office of Federal Operations -- within thirty (30) calendar days of this

decision becoming final. The agency shall then process the claim for

attorney's fees in accordance with 29 C.F.R. �1614.501.

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMISSION'S DECISION (K0595)

Compliance with the Commission's corrective action is mandatory.

The agency shall submit its compliance report within thirty (30)

calendar days of the completion of all ordered corrective action. The

report shall be submitted to the Compliance Officer, Office of Federal

Operations, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, P.O. Box 19848,

Washington, D.C. 20036. The agency's report must contain supporting

documentation, and the agency must send a copy of all submissions to

the appellant. If the agency does not comply with the Commission's

order, the appellant may petition the Commission for enforcement of

the order. 29 C.F.R. �1614.503 (a). The appellant also has the right

to file a civil action to enforce compliance with the Commission's

order prior to or following an administrative petition for enforcement.

See 29 C.F.R. �� 1614.408, 1614.409, and 1614.503 (g). Alternatively,

the appellant has the right to file a civil action on the underlying

complaint in accordance with the paragraph below entitled "Right to File

A Civil Action." 29 C.F.R. �� 1614.408 and 1614.409. A civil action for

enforcement or a civil action on the underlying complaint is subject to

the deadline stated in 42 U.S.C. �2000e-16(c) (Supp. V 1993). If the

appellant files a civil action, the administrative processing of the

complaint, including any petition for enforcement, will be terminated.

See 29 C.F.R. �1614.410.

STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL

RECONSIDERATION (M0795)

The Commission may, in its discretion, reconsider the decision in this

case if the appellant or the agency submits a written request containing

arguments or evidence which tend to establish that:

1. New and material evidence is available that was not readily available

when the previous decision was issued; or

2. The previous decision involved an erroneous interpretation of law,

regulation or material fact, or misapplication of established policy; or

3. The decision is of such exceptional nature as to have substantial

precedential implications.

Requests to reconsider, with supporting arguments or evidence, MUST

BE FILED WITHIN THIRTY (30) CALENDAR DAYS of the date you receive this

decision, or WITHIN TWENTY (20) CALENDAR DAYS of the date you receive

a timely request to reconsider filed by another party. Any argument in

opposition to the request to reconsider or cross request to reconsider

MUST be submitted to the Commission and to the requesting party

WITHIN TWENTY (20) CALENDAR DAYS of the date you receive the request

to reconsider. See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.407. All requests and arguments

must bear proof of postmark and 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 filed on the date it is received

by the Commission.

Failure to file within the time period will result in dismissal of your

request for reconsideration as untimely. If extenuating circumstances

have prevented the timely filing of a request for reconsideration,

a written statement setting forth the circumstances which caused the

delay and 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. � l6l4.604(c).

RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (R0993)

This is a decision requiring the agency to continue its administrative

processing of your complaint. However, if you wish to file a civil

action, you have the right to file such an action in an appropriate

United States District Court. It is the position of the Commission

that 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. You should be aware, however, that

courts in some jurisdictions have interpreted the Civil Rights Act of

1991 in a manner suggesting that a civil action must be filed WITHIN

THIRTY (30) CALENDAR DAYS from the date that you receive this decision.

To ensure that your civil action is considered timely, you are advised to

file it WITHIN THIRTY (30) CALENDAR DAYS from the date that you receive

this decision or to consult an attorney concerning the applicable time

period in the jurisdiction in which your action would be filed. In the

alternative, you may file a civil action AFTER ONE HUNDRED EIGHTY (180)

CALENDARS DAYS of the date you filed your complaint with the agency,

or filed your appeal with the Commission. 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. Filing a civil action will terminate the

administrative processing of your complaint.

RIGHT TO REQUEST COUNSEL (Z1092)

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:

March 19, 1999

_________________ _______________________________

DATE Ronnie Blumenthal, Director

Office of Federal Operations

NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES

POSTED BY ORDER OF THE

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

An Agency of the United States Government

This Notice is posted pursuant to an Order by the United States Equal

Employment Opportunity Commission dated _____________ which found that

a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as amended,

42 U.S.C. �2000e et seq., has occurred at this facility.

Federal law requires that there be no discrimination against any

employee or applicant for employment because of the person's RACE,

COLOR, RELIGION, SEX, NATIONAL ORIGIN, AGE, or PHYSICAL or MENTAL

DISABILITY with respect to hiring, firing, promotion, compensation,

or other terms, conditions or privileges of employment.

The Arrowhead Station, Glendale, Arizona, supports and will comply with

such Federal law and will not take action against individuals because

they have exercised their rights under law.

The Arrowhead Station, Glendale, Arizona, has been found to have

discriminated against the individual affected by the Commission's

finding on the basis of his race/color (Black) and sex (mail) when

he was not selected for the position of Rural Carrier Associate.

The Commission has ordered that this individual be awarded back pay,

with interest, retroactive to the date he should have been hired

absent discrimination. The Arrowhead Station, Glendale, Arizona,

will ensure that officials responsible for personnel decisions and

terms and conditions of employment will abide by the requirements of

all Federal equal employment opportunity laws and will not retaliate

against employees who file EEO complaints.

The Arrowhead Station, Glendale, Arizona, will not in any manner

restrain, interfere, coerce, or retaliate against any individual who

exercises his or her right to oppose practices made unlawful by, or

who participates in proceedings pursuant to, Federal equal employment

opportunity law.

____________________

Date Posted: _____________________

Posting Expires: _________________

1 The Commission notes that, on appeal, appellant has not challenged

the AJ's holding that he is not covered by the ADEA with respect to

the hiring issue and was not unlawfully retaliated against with respect

to the termination issue. Therefore, the Commission will affirm these

conclusions without further comment.