0120142070
10-27-2014
Complainant, v. Patrick R. Donahoe, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Capital Metro Area), Agency.
Complainant,
v.
Patrick R. Donahoe,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Capital Metro Area),
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120142070
Agency No. 1K-281-0034-13
DECISION
Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405, the Commission accepts Complainant's appeal from the Agency's May 1, 2014 final decision concerning an equal employment opportunity (EEO) complaint claiming 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. and Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Rehabilitation Act), as amended, 29 U.S.C. � 791 et seq.
BACKGROUND
During the period at issue, Complainant worked as a Mail Handler at the Agency's Charlotte, North Carolina Processing and Distribution Center.
On September 3, 2013, Complainant filed the instant formal complaint. Therein, Complainant alleged that the Agency discriminated against him on the bases of race (African-American) and disability when:
1. on unspecified dates, he was denied supervisory positions; and
2. from April 20, 2013 through the present, including May 23, 2013 and June 3 and 7, 2013, he was denied opportunities to work as an Acting Supervisor (204-B).
After the investigation of the claim, the Agency provided Complainant with a copy of the report of investigation and notice of the right to request a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). In accordance with Complainant's request, the Agency issued a final decision on May 1, 2014, pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.110(b).
The Agency found that Complainant did not establish a prima facie case of race and disability discrimination.1 The Agency further found that assuming for the sake of argument only, Complainant established a prima facie case of race and disability discrimination, Agency management articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions which Complainant failed to show were a pretext.
The instant appeal followed.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
A claim of disparate treatment is examined under the three-part analysis first enunciated in McDonnell Douglas Corporation v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). For complainant to prevail, he must first establish a prima facie of discrimination by presenting facts that, if unexplained, reasonably give rise to an inference of discrimination, i.e., that a prohibited consideration was a factor in the adverse employment action. See McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 802; Furnco Construction Corp. v. Waters, 438 U.S. 567 (1978). The burden then shifts to the agency to articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its actions. See Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 253 (1981). Once the agency has met its burden, the complainant bears the ultimate responsibility to persuade the fact finder by a preponderance of the evidence that the agency acted on the basis of a prohibited reason. See St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (1993).
This established order of analysis in discrimination cases, in which the first step normally consists of determining the existence of a prima facie case, need not be followed in all cases. Where the agency has articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the personnel action at issue, the factual inquiry can proceed directly to the third step of the McDonnell Douglas analysis, the ultimate issue of whether complainant has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the agency's actions were motivated by discrimination. See U.S. Postal Service Board of Governors v. Aikens, 460 U.S. 711, 713-714 (1983); Hernandez v. Department of Transportation, EEOC Request No. 05900159 (June 28, 1990); Peterson v. Department of Health and Human Services, EEOC Request No. 05900467 (June 8, 1990); Washington v. Department of the Navy, EEOC Petition No. 03900056 (May 31, 1990).
The record reflects that in regard to claim 1, the Postmaster of the Concord, North Carolina Post Office (Concord Postmaster) served as the Review Committee Chairperson for the position of Supervisor, Customer Services at the Agency's Gastonia, North Carolina Post Office. The Concord Postmaster stated that his job was to review the applicants' applications along with two other review committee members, and assign ratings to each applicant based on his or her responses.
Further the Concord Postmaster stated that there were eight Knowledge, Skills and Abilities (KSAs) requirements each applicant needed to demonstrate on his or her application. The KSAs included change management, communication skills, employee focus, functional administration, knowledge of performance measurement, operations management, personal acumen, and work unit planning. The Postmaster stated that applicants' scores were tallied and "a final score was determined for each applicant. Based on the score, the applicant was determined to be eligible or ineligible for further consideration by the selecting official. If any applicant receives a rating of 0 for any of the eight KSA competencies, then the employee's final score is 0 and they are deemed to be ineligible for further consideration. The review committee came to a consensus for each score given to each applicant."
The Concord Postmaster stated that Complainant was not selected for the position of Supervisor, Customer Service because he was determined to be ineligible. The Concord Postmaster stated that Complainant provided poor responses for five of the eight KSA competency requirements that "he needed to demonstrate for the position and as a result he received a rating of '0' in five of the eight competency requirements. Therefore, based on [Complainant's] application, the consensus of all three review committee members was that he did not meet the requirements of the position and he was determined to be ineligible."
Moreover, the Concord Postmaster stated that Complainant's race and disability were not factors in management's decision not to select Complainant for the subject position.
One of the other two review committee members, the Postmaster of the Rock Hill Post Office, South Carolina (Rock Hill Postmaster) stated that Complainant was ineligible for consideration of the subject position because he failed to demonstrate his KSA "as they pertained to the eight requirements of the position. He received a rating of '0' in five of the eight competency requirements."
Regarding claim 2, the record reflects that according to the Manager, Distribution Operations, also Complainant's second level supervisor, she stated that she is the manager on Tour 3 and "occasionally make the supervisor schedule which means I would determine which employee will be used as a 204B if the need arises." The Manager further stated that in early 2013, Complainant was given the opportunity to work as a 204B. Specifically, the Manager stated that Complainant served as a 204B "on approximately 10-20 occasions during that timeframe. Unfortunately, when [Complainant] worked as an acting supervisor, employees would not work for him or acknowledge his authority because he had not demonstrated a good work ethic when he worked in his normal position."
The Manager also stated that Complainant had attendance problems which resulted in his absence from work on numerous occasions and management "could not rely on him to be at work if he were put on the schedule as a supervisor. Therefore, as of April 2013, [Complainant] has not been used as a 204B because he is unable to effectively [supervise] employees and because he has attendance issues which cause him to be unreliable which means we cannot count on him to be at work to supervise employees if we put him on the schedule. The primary reason he has not been used as a 204B is due to his erratic attendance." Furthermore, the Manager stated that she did not discriminate against Complainant based on his race and disability.
Neither during the investigation, nor on appeal, has Complainant proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, that these proffered reasons were a pretext for unlawful discrimination.
Complainant has provided no persuasive arguments indicating any improprieties in the Agency's findings. Therefore, after a review of the record in its entirety, including consideration of all statements on appeal, it is the decision of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to AFFIRM the Agency's final decision because the preponderance of the evidence of record does not establish that discrimination occurred.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0610)
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), at 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 77960, Washington, DC 20013. 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 (S0610)
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 (Z0610)
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 from the Court that the Court appoint an attorney to represent you and that the Court also 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 with the Court 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
October 27, 2014
__________________
Date
1 For purposes of this analysis, we assume, without so finding, that Complainant was a qualified individual with a disability.
---------------
------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
------------------------------------------------------------
2
0120142070
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
5
0120142070
6
0120142070