01a53664
11-04-2005
John B. Hutton, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
John B. Hutton v. United States Postal Service
01A53664
November 4, 2005
.
John B. Hutton,
Complainant,
v.
John E. Potter,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A53664
Agency No. 4C-450-0026-04
DECISION
Complainant initiated an appeal from a final decision concerning his
complaint of unlawful 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. For the following reasons, the Commission AFFIRMS the
agency's final decision.
The record reveals that during the relevant time, complainant was employed
as a Clerk at the agency's Dayton, Ohio facility. Complainant sought
EEO counseling and subsequently filed a formal complaint on April 10,
2004, alleging that he was discriminated against on the bases of race
(Caucasian), sex (male), and religion (Christian) when:
Complainant was not selected for the Associate Supervisor Program (ASP)
on January 2, 2004.
At the conclusion of the investigation, complainant was informed of
his right to request a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge
or alternatively, to receive a final decision by the agency. When
complainant failed to respond within the time period specified in 29
C.F.R. � 1614.108(f), the agency issued a final decision.
In its March 24, 2005 decision, the agency concluded that complainant
failed to demonstrate his decision making experience in answering the
section of the application dealing with his knowledge, skills and ability
(KSA). The Review Committee scoring the applications submitted, halted
their review of complainant's application at that point in the process,
as they did for all applicants receiving a zero or �no demonstration� on
any part of the KSA section. The agency found that two other applicants,
who also applied for the ASP at the Dayton facility, provided adequate
answers to the same question, received an interview and were ultimately
selected for the ASP.
On appeal, complainant contends that he submitted the same application
package, and same KSA answers in 2002, for which he received an interview
for the ASP, though he was not selected then. Complainant claims that
one member of the Review Committee was acquainted with him and could
have recognized his application from his answers to the questions asked
in the application process. Complainant states that he believes his
previous experiences at the Dayton facility were known to the Committee
member and his religious beliefs were involved.
The agency requests that we affirm its final decision.
The Commission concurs with the agency's determination that complainant
failed to establish a prima facie case of race, sex or religious
discrimination. Specifically, we find that one selectee was male, one
female, and that both were Caucasian. Accordingly, complainant has not
established that other applicants, not in his protected classes received
preferential treatment. Similarly, we find that complainant has not shown
any evidence to establish that consideration of complainant's religion
influenced the rating complainant received from the Review Committee
regarding his answer to the KSA section of the application process.
We find nothing in the record shows that the Committee members were
aware of his religion. We observe that the evidence shows a number of
applicants (for the ASP at various facilities other than Dayton, Ohio)
did not receive an interview after receiving a zero, or rating of �no
demonstration� for their KSA answers.
The Commission further finds that complainant failed to present evidence
that more likely than not, the agency's articulated reasons for its
actions were a pretext for discrimination. In reaching this conclusion,
we note the evidence confirms that no information regarding an applicant's
religion appears in the application materials considered by the Committee.
Therefore, after a careful review of the record, including complainant's
contentions on appeal, the agency's response, and arguments and evidence
not specifically addressed in this decision, we AFFIRM the agency's
final decision finding no discrimination.
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
November 4, 2005
__________________
Date