Lawrence L.,1 Complainant,v.Megan J. Brennan, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Eastern Area), Agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Apr 20, 2017

0120152163 (E.E.O.C. Apr. 20, 2017)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013

Lawrence L.,1
Complainant,

v.

Megan J. Brennan,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Eastern Area),
Agency.

Appeal No. 0120152163

Agency No. 4C-440-0156-14

DECISION

Complainant appeals to the Commission from the Agency’s final decision dated May 27, 2015,
finding no discrimination with regard to his complaint alleging 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. For the following reasons, we AFFIRM the Agency’s final
decision finding no discrimination.

BACKGROUND

In his complaint, filed on December 12, 2014, Complainant alleged discrimination based on
sex (male), disability (leg/ankle), and in reprisal for prior EEO activity when on August 29,
2014, he was not selected for the Postmaster position in Defiance, Ohio. After completion of
the investigation of the complaint, Complainant did not request a hearing. The Agency issued
its final Agency decision concluding that it asserted legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for
its action, which Complainant failed to rebut.

1 This case has been randomly assigned a pseudonym which will replace Complainant’s name
when the decision is published to non-parties and the Commission’s website.
0120152163

2
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

As this is an appeal from a decision issued without a hearing, pursuant to 29 C.F.R.
§ 1614.110(b), the agency's decision is subject to de novo review by the Commission. 29
C.F.R. § 1614.405(a). See Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive for 29
C.F.R. Part 1614 (EEO MD-110), Chap. 9 § VI.A. (Aug. 5, 2015) (explaining that the de
novo standard of review "requires that the Commission examine the record without regard to
the factual and legal determinations of the previous decision maker," and that EEOC "review
the documents, statements, and testimony of record, including any timely and relevant
submissions of the parties, and . . . issue its decision based on the Commission's own
assessment of the record and its interpretation of the law").

After a review of the record, assuming arguendo that Complainant had established a prima
facie case of discrimination, we find that the Agency has articulated legitimate,
nondiscriminatory reasons for the alleged nonselection. During the relevant time period,
Complainant was employed as a Supervisor, EAS-17 at the Bryan Post Office, Bryan, Ohio.
Complainant indicated that on May 20, 2014, he applied for the Postmaster, EAS-21 position
at issue but was not selected.

The Selecting Official (SO) indicated that there were only three applicants, including
Complainant, for the position at issue and one of the three applicants withdrew prior to the
interview process. For the vacant position, the SO stated that she was looking for the
applicant’s past performance, budget operations, integrity, trust and credibility, and the ability
to continue the existing harmonious labor climate. The SO stated that she convened three
interview panelists, which consisted of the SO and two high ranking managers. The interview
panelists concurred that Complainant did not do well during his interview in that: he did not
answer questions quickly; he was not sure of his answers; his answers were short with no
details; he was unsure of the current “F2B” target; when asked about the Defiance flash, he
was not sure of the efficiency indicators; and it seemed he was not ready for the EAS-21
position. The panelists stated that the selectee, who was a Postmaster in Napoleon, EAS-20,
was confident, very versed in the performance and needs of the office; conveyed strong
leadership; her answers were more fluid; she developed several 204B’s who had recently been
promoted to EAS-17 Supervisors; she was very knowledgeable about “F2B and F4” targets
and able to analyze data; she was eager to change the current perception of the Defiance Post
Office; and she was ready to assume the responsibility of the position at issue. The SO stated
that considering the foregoing, she decided to select the selectee for the position at issue
because she demonstrated during the interview and through her current office performance that
she possessed the skills and knowledge needed to be successful as the Postmaster of Defiance.

It is noted that we do not address in this decision whether Complainant is a qualified individual
with a disability. Furthermore, we note that Complainant has not claimed that he was denied a
reasonable accommodation and even if he did claim such, we do not find such denial. The SO
and the interview panelists indicated that they had no knowledge of Complainant’s medical
conditions during the relevant time. After a review of the record, we find that Complainant
0120152163

3
failed to show that his qualifications for the position were plainly superior to the selectee’s
qualifications or that the Agency’s actions were motivated by discrimination. See Complainant
v. Department of Labor, EEOC Request No. 05940058 (November 2, 1995). Based on the
foregoing, we find that Complainant has failed to show that the Agency’s action was motivated
by discrimination as he alleged.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, the Agency’s final decision finding no discrimination is AFFIRMED.

STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0416)

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 Chap. 9 § VII.B (Aug. 5, 2015). All requests and arguments
must be submitted to the Director, Office of Federal Operations, Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission. The requests may be submitted via regular mail to P.O. Box 77960,
Washington, DC 20013, or by certified mail to 131 M Street, NE, Washington, DC 20507. 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).

0120152163

4
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 (Z0815)

If you want to file a civil action but cannot pay the fees, costs, or security to do so, you may
request permission from the court to proceed with the civil action without paying these fees or
costs. Similarly, if you cannot afford an attorney to represent you in the civil action, you may
request the court to appoint an attorney for you. You must submit the requests for waiver of
court costs or appointment of an attorney directly to the court, not the Commission. The court
has the sole discretion to grant or deny these types of requests. Such requests do not alter the
time limits for filing a civil action (please read the paragraph titled Complainant’s Right to File
a Civil Action for the specific time limits).

FOR THE COMMISSION:

______________________________ Carlton M. Hadden’s signature
Carlton M. Hadden, Director
Office of Federal Operations

April 20, 2017
Date