EEOC Appeal 2020000587

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Mervin D.,1
Complainant,
v.
Louis DeJoy,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Great Lakes Area),
Agency.
Appeal No. 2020000587
Hearing No. 560-2018-00331X
Agency No. 1J-631-0012-18
DECISION
On September 21, 2019, Complainant filed an appeal with the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (EEOC or Commission), pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.403(a), from the Agency’s
August 20, 2019, final decision concerning his equal employment opportunity (EEO) 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.
BACKGROUND
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a Parcel Post
Distribution-Machine, PS-06, at the Agency’s Saint Louis Processing and Distribution Center
facility in Saint Louis, Missouri.
On March 13, 2018, Complainant filed an EEO complaint alleging that the Agency discriminated
against him on the bases of race (African-American) and color (Black/dark) when, on October 19,
2017, he was informed that he was not selected for the In-Service Register for Maintenance
Mechanic.
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.

2020000587	2
The Agency accepted the complaint and conducted an investigation which produced the following
facts.
Complainant signed up for the in-service examination for the Maintenance Department in April
2014. He attested that he applied for the Maintenance Mechanic, Mail Processing Equipment
(MPE) Level 9 and Maintenance Mechanic (MM) Level 7 In-Service Registers, and, on June 2,
2014, he took and passed the tests for each of these Registers. Although he was found eligible for
the MPE and MM job groups, he did not receive a panel interview until October 19, 2017.
Complainant attested that he was notified that he was not selected for the In-Service Register
because he failed during the interview process.
The Maintenance Manager (Manager1) explained the process by which an employee’s name is put
on 	the 	In-Service Register. 	She explained 	that 	it begins 	with 	the Agency’s 	posting an
announcement under which Agency employees could apply. She explained that a list of applicants
was compiled, and a review panel evaluated each applicant’s qualifications and enters a rating for
each applicant into an electronic system which generates either an eligible or ineligible rating. She
further explained that an employee’s name is put on the In-Service Register if they meet the criteria
of being a career employee during the posting period, they have an eligible rating on the test, and
have an eligible rating on the structured interview given by the panel.
Manager1 was on the review panel that interviewed Complainant for a position on the Maintenance
Mechanic MM-7 (MM-7) and the Maintenance Mechanic MPE-9 (MPE-9) Registers. She attested
that Complainant received a failing rating for the interview portions because, during the MM-7
interview, his response to Analytical Problem-Solving indicated no demonstration of the
competencies and, during the MPE-9, his responses to Safe Work Habits and Electronics
Knowledge indicated no demonstration of the competencies. She also attested that the consensus
ratings were all agreed upon by the review panel. Another review panel member attested that the
panel rated Complainant not qualified during the interview portion, based on the responses he gave
to the interview questions.
The Agency issued a final decision, pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.110(b), based on the evidence
developed during the investigation, that concluded that Complainant failed to prove that the
Agency subjected him to discrimination as alleged.
The instant appeal followed.
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, at Chapter 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

2020000587	3
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”).
Complainant has alleged that the Agency treated him disparately in not selecting him for an In-
Service Register. A claim of disparate treatment is examined under the three-part analysis first
enunciated in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). For a complainant to
prevail, he must first establish a prima facie case 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 Constr. Corp. v. Waters, 438 U.S. 567 (1978). The burden then shifts to the agency
to articulate a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for its actions. See Tex. Dep’t of Cmty. 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 Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502
(1993).
Even if we assume that Complainant established a prima facie case of discrimination, his claim
ultimately fails, as we find that the Agency articulated legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for
its actions. The Agency management witnesses explained that Complainant was found ineligible
for placement on the In-Service Register because his responses during his interviews for the MM-
7 and the MPE-9 positions failed to demonstrate the required competencies for either position.
Although Complainant has alleged discrimination, he has not established by a preponderance of
the evidence, that the legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons articulated by the Agency witnesses
were a pretext for unlawful discrimination or motivated by some unlawful discriminatory animus
with respect to this claim.
Based on a thorough review of the record and the contentions on appeal, including those not
specifically addressed herein, we AFFIRM the Agency’s final decision.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0620)
The Commission may, in its discretion, reconsider this appellate decision if the complainant or the
agency submits a written request that contains arguments or evidence that 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 for reconsideration must be filed with EEOC’s Office of Federal Operations (OFO)
within thirty (30) calendar days of receipt of this decision. If the party requesting reconsideration
elects to file a statement or brief in support of the request, that statement or brief must be filed
together with the request for reconsideration.

2020000587	4
A party shall have twenty (20) calendar days from receipt of another party’s request for
reconsideration within which to submit a brief or statement in opposition. 	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).
Complainant should submit his or her request for reconsideration, and any statement or brief in
support 	of 	his 	or 	her 	request, 	via 	the 	EEOC 	Public 	Portal, 	which 	can 	be 	found 	at
https://publicportal.eeoc.gov/Portal/Login.aspx.
Alternatively, complainant can submit his or her request and arguments to the Director, Office of
Federal Operations, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, via regular mail addressed to
P.O. Box 77960, Washington, DC 20013, or by certified mail addressed to 131 M Street, NE,
Washington, DC 20507. In the absence of a legible postmark, complainant’s request to reconsider
shall be deemed timely filed if OFO receives it by mail within five days of the expiration of the
applicable filing period. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.604.
An agency’s request for reconsideration must be submitted in digital format via the EEOC’s
Federal Sector EEO Portal (FedSEP). See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.403(g). Either party’s request and/or
statement or brief in opposition must also include proof of service on the other party, unless
complainant files his or her request via the EEOC Public Portal, in which case no proof of service
is required.
Failure to file within the 30-day time period will result in dismissal of the party’s request for
reconsideration as untimely, unless extenuating circumstances prevented the timely filing of the
request. 	Any supporting documentation must be submitted together with the 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 (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.

2020000587	5
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
October 14, 2020
Date