01981741
03-22-2000
Lloyd W. Rowe, Complainant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, U.S. Postal Service, (Allegheny/Mid-Atlantic Areas), Agency.
Lloyd W. Rowe v. U.S. Postal Service
01981741
March 22, 2000
Lloyd W. Rowe, )
Complainant, )
)
v. )
) Appeal No. 01981741
William J. Henderson, ) Agency Nos. 4D-250-0142-97
Postmaster General, )
U.S. Postal Service, )
(Allegheny/Mid-Atlantic Areas), )
Agency. )
)
DECISION
INTRODUCTION
Complainant timely initiated an appeal from a final agency decision (FAD)
concerning his complaints of unlawful employment discrimination on the
basis of sex (Male) in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. � 2000e et seq.<1> Complainant alleges that
he was discriminated against when he was not selected by the agency for a
position for which he had applied. The appeal is accepted in accordance
with 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659 (1999) (to be codified at 29 C.F.R. �
1614.405). For the following reasons, the agency's decision is AFFIRMED.
BACKGROUND
The record reveals that during the relevant time period, complainant
was employed by the agency as a City Letter Carrier at the Abington,
Virginia Post Office. In 1997, complainant submitted an application for a
Postal Systems Coordinator, EAS 15, position located in Bristol, Virginia.
The agency found complainant to be qualified for the position but selected
another applicant for the position.
Believing himself to be a victim of discrimination, complainant sought
EEO counseling and, subsequently, filed a formal complaint charging
discrimination in his nonselection. The agency accepted the complaint
for investigation. At the conclusion of the investigation, complainant
was furnished with a copy of the investigative report. Complainant did
not exercise his right to a hearing. Accordingly, the agency issued a
FAD on the basis of the investigative record.
The FAD concluded that complainant had not been discriminated against,
finding that complainant had failed to establish a prima facie case of
sex-based discrimination; that the agency had articulated a legitimate,
nondiscriminatory reason for its selection; and that complainant
had failed to prove that reason to be a pretext designed to conceal
discriminatory animus.
From the FAD complainant brings the instant appeal.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
After a careful review of the record, based on McDonnell Douglas
Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) and its progeny, Texas Dept. of
Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 253-56 (1981); and St. Mary's
Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (1993), the Commission finds that
complainant failed to prove that the agency's articulated reason for
its actions was a pretext for discrimination.<2>
According to the agency, it chose the selectee for the position rather
than complainant because "in-house" financial experience was an important
qualification for the position and the selectee had in excess of three
years experience working in agency financial operations while complainant
had none. Complainant contends that his qualifications were superior to
those of the selectee in that he had significantly more formal education
than did the selectee.
We find that although complainant was fully qualified for the position,
he failed to establish that his qualifications were so plainly superior
to those of the selectee to permit a finding of discriminatory animus.
Vanek v. Department of the Treasury, EEOC Request No. 05940906 (Jan. 16,
1997); Patterson v. Department of the Treasury, EEOC Request No. 05950156
(May 9, 1996). The agency's principal reason for preferring the
selectee to complainant was that the selectee had experience as an
agency employee with financial operations, while complainant did not.
This is a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for the agency's actions.
See Pegues v. Department of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Request No. 05960369
(September 3, 1998)(agency may legitimately afford hiring preference
to current employees.) Complainant has adduced no evidence that the
agency's articulated reason for its selection was a pretext designed to
conceal discriminatory animus.
CONCLUSION
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 FAD.
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 (3O) CALENDAR
DAYS of receipt of this decision or WITHIN TWENTY (2O) 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:
3-22-00
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 after it was mailed. I certify
that this decision was mailed to complainant, complainant's representative
(if applicable), and the agency on:
3-22-00
Date
__________________________
Equal Employment Assistant
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.
2Although the initial inquiry in a discrimination case usually focuses
on whether the complainant has established a prima facie case, following
this order of analysis is unnecessary where, as here, the agency has
articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its actions.
See Washington v. Department of the Navy, EEOC Petition No. 03900056 (May
31, 1990). In such cases, the inquiry shifts from whether the complainant
has established a prima facie case to whether s/he has demonstrated by a
preponderance of the evidence that the agency's reason for its actions
was a pretext for discrimination. Id.; see also United States Postal
Service Board of Governors v. Aikens, 460 U.S. 711, 714-17 (1983).