01A04384
04-05-2001
Roxanne Culbreth, Complainant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.
Roxanne Culbreth v. United States Postal Service
01A04384
04-05-01
.
Roxanne Culbreth,
Complainant,
v.
William J. Henderson,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service,
Agency.
Appeal No. 01A04384
Agency No. 4-C-190-0168-98
Hearing No. 170-99-8475X
DECISION
INTRODUCTION
On May 31, 2000, Roxanne Culbreth (complainant) initiated an appeal to
the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) from the
final decision of the United States Postal Service (agency), concerning
her 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. The appeal is accepted pursuant to 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405.
ISSUE PRESENTED
The issue presented herein is whether complainant was discriminated
against on the bases of race (African American), color (black) and sex
when she was not selected for the position of Supervisor Accounting
Services, EAS-21, in May 1998.<1>
BACKGROUND
Complainant, a Postal Systems Coordinator, EAS-15, as well as three
other candidates, applied for the position of Supervisor Accounting
Services, EAS-21. After conducting interviews with the four candidates,
the selecting official (SO) chose a white male (selectee) with eight years
supervisory experience for the position. The selectee had been detailed
to the Accounting Services position by the SO for approximately sixteen
months before his selection. Complainant avers that, having worked in
Accounting Services for 13 years, she is more qualified for the position
than the selectee. Furthermore, complainant contends that the SO has
shown a pattern of detailing white males from other functional areas
into vacant high level positions, and later promoting them to those
same positions.
On October 5, 1998, complainant filed a formal complaint. The agency
conducted an investigation, provided complainant with a copy of the
investigative report, and advised complainant of her right to request
either a hearing before an AJ or an immediate final agency decision.
Complainant requested a hearing before an AJ. On April 4, 2000, the AJ
issued a decision without a hearing, finding no discrimination.
The AJ found that complainant established a prima facie case of
race, color and sex discrimination because she presented evidence
that a white male was selected for the position. However, the agency
articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its action,
namely that the selectee was chosen because he possessed eight years of
supervisory experience, whereas the complainant possessed ten months of
such experience. Complainant then failed to prove that the agency's
articulated reason was pretext for discrimination. Although the
AJ found that complainant had settled a prior EEO complaint, Agency
No. 4-C-190-0010-97, the AJ addressed her contention that the SO selected
white males for positions into which they had previously been detailed.
The AJ found that complainant failed to show that the SO selected only
white males whom he had detailed to higher level positions, because she
and another black female were also selected for higher level positions
to which they had previously been detailed. The AJ concluded that
complainant was not discriminated against on the bases of race, color or
sex when she was not selected for the position of Supervisor Accounting
Services, EAS-21.
On May 19, 2000, the agency's final decision implemented the AJ's
decision.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
The U.S. Supreme Court has held that summary judgement is appropriate
where a court determines that, given the substantive legal and evidentiary
standards that apply to the case, there exists no genuine issue of
material fact. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255
(1986). In ruling on a motion for summary judgement a court does not
sit as a fact finder. Id. The evidence of the non-moving party must be
believed at the summary judgement stage and all justifiable inferences
must be drawn in the non-moving party's favor. Id. A disputed issue of
fact is �genuine� if the evidence is such that a reasonable fact finder
could find in favor of the non-moving party. Celtotex v. Carett, 477
U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986); Oliver v. Digital Equip. Corp., 846 F.2D 103,
105 (1st Cir. 1988). A fact is �material� if it has the potential
to affect the outcome of the case. If a case can only be resolved by
weighing conflicting evidence, summary judgement is not appropriate.
In the context of an administrative proceeding under Title VII, an AJ may
only properly consider summary judgement after there has been adequate
opportunity for development of the record.
The Commission finds that the AJ's decision properly summarized the
relevant facts and referenced the appropriate regulations, policies,
and laws. Applying the standards set forth in McDonnell Douglas
Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973), the Commission agrees with the
AJ that complainant established a prima facie case of race, color and
sex discrimination. However, the agency has articulated a legitimate,
non-discriminatory reason for its action. Specifically, the agency
stated that the selectee was chosen because he possessed eight years
of supervisory experience, whereas the complainant possessed ten
months of such experience. Although the complainant argues that she
is more qualified than the selectee and challenges the SO's decision
to select a candidate with more supervisory experience, we find that
complainant has failed to prove that the agency's articulated reason
was pretext for discrimination. The record reveals that complainant
was qualified for the position, however, her qualifications were not so
plainly superior to the selectee's as to warrant a finding of pretext.
With respect to complainant's contention that the SO selected white males
for higher level positions into which they had previously been detailed,
we find that complainant has settled this matter in another EEO complaint.
Moreover, complainant has failed to show that the SO selected only white
males whom he had detailed to higher level positions, because she and
another black female were also selected for higher level positions to
which they had previously been detailed. Therefore, after a careful
review of the record, including arguments and evidence not specifically
addressed in this decision, we find that the AJ's decision finding no
discrimination was proper.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, we AFFIRM the agency's final decision.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0900)
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
___04-05-01_______________
Date
1In her complaint, complainant referenced allegations relating to a
prior EEO complaint, Agency No. 4-C-190-0010-97.