01984511
08-15-2000
William A. Cook, Complainant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (Pacific/Western Areas), Agency.
William A. Cook v. United States Postal Service
01984511
August 15, 2000
William A. Cook, )
Complainant, )
) Appeal No. 01984511
v. ) Agency No. 4E-995-0042-97
)
William J. Henderson, )
Postmaster General, )
United States Postal Service, )
(Pacific/Western Areas), )
Agency. )
____________________________________)
DECISION
Complainant timely initiated an appeal from a final agency decision
(FAD) concerning his complaint of unlawful employment discrimination in
violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42
U.S.C. � 2000e et seq., Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as
amended, 29 U.S.C. � 791 et seq., and the Age Discrimination in Employment
Act of 1967 (ADEA), as amended, 29 U.S.C. � 621 et seq. <1> The appeal
is accepted pursuant to 64 Fed. Reg. 37,644, 37,659 (1999)(to be codified
at 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405). Complainant alleged that he was discriminated
against on the bases of age (DOB: 4/30/96), physical disability, (multi
level spondylosis), and reprisal (prior EEO activity), when, on May 22,
1997, he learned the reason he failed the written portion of the Associate
Supervisor Examination.
The record reveals that during the relevant time, complainant was employed
as a Letter Carrier at the agency's Mid Town Station, Anchorage, Alaska
facility. Believing he was a victim of discrimination, complainant
sought EEO counseling and subsequently filed a formal complaint on
August 8, 1997. 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.
Complainant requested that the agency issue a final decision.
In its FAD, the agency concluded that complainant failed to establish
a prima facie case of discrimination on any bases. Specifically, the
record revealed that the written portion of the Associate Supervisor
examination did not contain the applicants' personal information.
As such, the agency found complainant failed to show the agency
discriminated against him as alleged.
On appeal, complainant contends that the Report of Investigation is
missing important documents. Complainant also argues that the agency's
program utilizes a minority quota system in its hiring practices.
He claims he is more qualified than the selectees as evidenced by his
advanced degree. The agency requests that we affirm its FAD.
Applying the standards set forth in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green,
411, U.S. 792 (1973); Prewitt v. United States Postal Service, 662 F.2d
292, 310 (5th Cir. 1981); Loeb v. Textron, 600 F.2d 1003 (1st Cir. 1979)
(requiring a showing that age was a determinative factor, in the sense
that "but for" age, complainant would not have been subject to the adverse
action at issue); and Hochstadt v. Worcester Foundation for Experimental
Biology, Inc., 425 F. Supp. 318, 324 (D. Mass.), aff'd, 545 F.2d 222 (1st
Cir. 1976) (applying McDonnell Douglas to reprisal cases), the Commission
agrees with the agency that complainant failed to establish a prima facie
case of discrimination because complainant failed to establish that any
of the individuals on the Review Board were aware of the applicant's
identity when they conducted their review. All members of the Review
Board averred in their affidavits that all personal information was
�whited out� from the text of the applications and review materials.
As for complainant's claim of retaliation, the record reveals only the
Manager of Operations Support was aware that complainant participated
in prior EEO activity. However, he also averred that, �[a]t no time
during the evaluation of the written portion of the examination was I
given the name of any applicant.� ROI at 21.
Assuming for the purposes of analysis that complainant is an individual
with a disability, 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 that although complainant maintains the agency's
scoring method was irrational, he failed to establish he was not selected
due to a discriminatory animus. See Loving v. Department of Treasury,
EEOC Appeal No. 01984454 (July 2, 1999) and Lloyd v. Department Of
Justice, EEOC Appeal No. 01952370 (May 6, 1997). 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 (M0300)
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); 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 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:
August 15, 2000
Date Carlton M. Hadden, Director
Office of Federal Operations
1 On 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.