The opinion of the court was delivered by: GABRIEL GORENSTEIN, Magistrate Judge
On December 8, 2003, plaintiff Richard Arline commenced this
action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,
42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq. ("Title VII"), against defendant John E.
Potter, Postmaster General of the United States Postal Service
("USPS"), alleging that the USPS intentionally discriminated
against him on account of his race and sex when it refused to
promote him to several positions at the United States Postal
Inspection Service ("USPIS"). The defendant whom we will refer
to for convenience as the USPS now moves for summary judgment
pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56. The parties have consented to the
disposition of this matter by a United States Magistrate Judge
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). For the reasons stated below, the
USPS's motion is granted. I. BACKGROUND
A. Evidence Presented on the Summary Judgment Motion*fn1
Arline is a 56-year-old African-American male. Def. 56.1 ¶ 1.
On December 31, 1977, Arline began his employment with the USPIS
as a trainee. Id. ¶ 2. In April 1978, he went to work as a
postal inspector in the Macon, Georgia office of the USPIS until
July 1982. Id. From 1982 until February 29, 2004, he held
various positions in the USPIS, the last of which was as Division
Training Officer in the Newark, New Jersey office beginning in
March 1998. On February 29, 2004, Arline voluntarily retired from
the USPS. Id. (citing Deposition of Richard Arline, dated
September 22, 2004 ("Arline Dep.")) (reproduced as Ex. A to
Declaration of Allison D. Penn, dated February 15, 2005 ("Penn
Decl.") (annexed to Def. Motion)).
On August 30, 1999, the USPIS issued an Inspector Vacancy
Announcement containing a posting for two vacancies for the
position of Assistant Inspector in Charge ("AIC") in the Atlanta
Field Office in the Southeast Division of the USPIS. Def. 56.1 ¶
3. Arline submitted an application for this position called a
Postal Service Form 991 ("Form 991") on September 13, 1999.
Id. ¶¶ 3-4. A review panel convened to narrow the list of
applicants to those the panel believed were best qualified. Id.
¶ 3. The review panel submitted a list of six out of fifteen
applicants to the Selecting Official, Ira Carle, who was then
Inspector in Charge for the Southeast Division of the USPIS.
Id. Arline was among the six referred to Carle. Id. Carle reviewed each of the six applicants' Form 991's and the
written assessment of each applicant submitted by the applicant's
manager. Def. 56.1 ¶ 4. Based on his review, Carle selected two
African-American females, Yeudele Allen and Marsha Freso, for the
positions. Id. Carle did so because he found that Allen and
Freso had done a commendable job in demonstrating on their Form
991's that they were experienced and would bring value to the
Division. Id. ¶ 5. By contrast, Carle found that Arline did not
sufficiently identify his past work experience in his Form 991.
Id. Furthermore, Arline did not adequately identify his past
experiences in critical areas of Inspection Service Programs,
which would be his responsibility if selected as AIC. Id.
Arline's grammatical and typographical errors on his Form 991
weighed against him as well. Id.
On January 10, 2000, the USPIS issued another Inspector Vacancy
Announcement posting a vacancy for the position of AIC, Field
Office Inspector in Charge ("FOINC"), in the Memphis Field Office
of the Southeast Division of the USPIS. Def. 56.1 ¶ 6. On January
24, 2000, Arline applied for the position. Id. Another review
panel convened, and recommended six of the nine applicants,
including Arline, to Carle. Id. Zane Hill, AIC in the
Washington D.C. Office, also requested consideration for a
non-competitive transfer to the position in the Memphis Field
Office, and his request was forwarded to Carle on January 13,
2000. Id. ¶ 7. Non-competitive applications for reassignment
could be considered before, during, or after the competitive
process. Id. Carle reviewed all the applications and selected
Hill, a Caucasian male, because he did a commendable job
identifying his past work experiences and explaining the value he
was going to bring to the Division. Id. ¶ 8. Hill's prior
experience as an AIC, his interview, and his Form 991 were the
deciding factors in Carle's decision to choose him. Id. Carle determined Arline did not do a good job articulating and
identifying in writing his experiences in critical areas that
would have been his responsibility as a FOINC. Id.
On February 4, 2000, Arline applied for another position as a
FOINC in the Kansas City Field Office in the Midwest Division of
the USPIS. Def. 56.1 ¶ 9. Another review panel recommended Arline
along with four other applicants. Id. This time, Ronald J.
Terlep, then Inspector in Charge of the Midwest Division, was the
selecting official. Id. Terlep reviewed the applications and
the written assessments of the applicants submitted by their
manager, and interviewed each applicant for approximately one
hour. Id. He selected Robin Dagleish, a Caucasian female, for
the position because she performed well during the interview, she
was highly recommended by her manager, and she had recently
served as the AIC to the Western Allegheny Division for ninety
days. Id. ¶ 10. Terlep said that he was impressed by Arline's
performance during the interview, and would have selected him had
he not chosen Dagleish, but Dagleish demonstrated a better
ability to manage a large caseload than Arline. Id.
On May 26, 2000, USPIS announced two vacancies for AIC
positions in the New York Metro Division of the USPIS, and Arline
applied. Def. 56.1 ¶ 11. Of the ten applicants, a review panel
recommended five, including Arline, to John J. Skidmore, the
individual in charge of selecting for the AIC positions. Id.
Skidmore interviewed each applicant for approximately one hour.
Id. Skidmore selected Thomas Van de Merlen and Ronald Walker,
two Caucasian males, for the two vacant AIC positions because
they both had acted in the AIC position in the New York Metro
Division on numerous prior occasions, they both had demonstrated
proficiency in their performance of their duties, and Skidmore
believed the job of AIC required individuals who had experience
and familiarity with the New York Office. Id. ¶¶ 12-13. Arline
did not have experience or familiarity with the New York Office, and had less
knowledge of the New York Metro Division's operations. Id. ¶
14. Furthermore, Skidmore was concerned about Arline's
supervisor's reservation about recommending him for the position
and Arline's limited supervisory experience. Id. Skidmore sent
Arline an e-mail informing him that he was not chosen because of
the merit of the selected applicants rather than any deficiency
of Arline's. See id. ¶ 15.
On February 26, 2002, the USPIS announced another AIC vacancy
in the Western Allegheny Division of the USPIS, and Arline bid
for this position. Def. 56.1 ¶ 16. James W. Birch, then Inspector
in Charge of the Western Allegheny Division of the USPIS, was the
selecting official for this position. Id. ¶ 17. A review panel
convened and recommended four applicants, one of whom was Arline.
Id. Birch reviewed the applications and conducted interviews in
which he focused on three topics: (1) the applicant's overall
knowledge of USPIS's mission, goals and objectives; (2) the
applicant's understanding of their home division's goals and how
they relate to national goals; and (3) the applicant's responses
to scenarios involving leadership, inter-personal relations and
work prioritization. Id. ¶¶ 17-18. Birch selected John
Wisniewksi, a Caucasian male, because he demonstrated a
substantive knowledge of the USPIS goals and objectives, and he
demonstrated leadership in task force operations, team
operations, and multi-agency initiatives. Id. ¶ 19. Arline did
not demonstrate an understanding of national goals, much less how
they related to field units such as the Western Allegheny
Division. Id. ¶ 20. Nor was Arline familiar with the goals and
initiatives of his own home unit. Id. B. Procedural History
Arline filed an Equal Employment Opportunity ("EEO") Complaint
dated January 10, 2000, challenging his non-selection for the
Atlanta and Memphis positions on the grounds of race and gender
discrimination. Def. 56.1 ¶ 21 (citing EEO Complaint of
Discrimination in the Postal Service, dated Jan. 10, 2000
(reproduced as Ex. G to Penn Decl.)). Arline filed another EEO
Complaint dated October 17, 2000, challenging his non-selection
for the New York position on the grounds of race and gender
discrimination. Id. (citing EEO Complaint of Discrimination in
the Postal Service, dated Oct. 17, 2000 (reproduced as Ex. I to
Penn Decl.)). Arline filed two more EEO Complaints challenging
his non-selection for the Kansas City and Allegheny positions.
Id. (citing EEO Complaint of Discrimination in the Postal
Service, dated Nov. 1, 2000 (reproduced as Ex. H to Penn Decl.);
EEO Complaint of Discrimination in the Postal Service, dated Dec.
21, 2002 (reproduced as Ex. J to Penn Decl.)). Arline is not
challenging his non-selection for the St. Paul, Minnesota, AIC
position. Def. 56.1 ¶ 22.
The USPS consolidated the Atlanta, Memphis, Kansas City and New
York EEO Complaints and issued a Final Agency Decision denying
relief. Def. 56.1 ¶ 23 (citing Final Agency Decision, dated Jan.
10, 2000 [sic] (reproduced as Ex. K to Penn Decl.)). Arline
appealed the denial to the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission ("EEOC"), which on September 8, 2003, affirmed the
agency's decision denying relief. Id. (citing Decision, dated
Sept. 8, 2003 (reproduced as Ex. M to Penn Decl.). The USPS
issued another Final Agency Decision relating to the Allegheny
EEO Complaint on December 17, 2003, and the EEOC affirmed the
agency's decision on or about May 4, 2004. Id. (citing Final
Agency Decision, dated Dec. 17, 2003 (reproduced as Ex. L to Penn Decl.);
Decision, dated May 4, 2004 (reproduced as Ex. N to Penn Decl.)).
On December 8, 2003, Arline filed his Complaint in the instant
action. See Complaint for Compensatory Damages, filed Dec. 8,
2003 (Docket #1) ("Complaint"). Arline filed an amended complaint
on July 16, 2004. See Amended Complaint for Compensatory
Damages, filed July 16, 2004 (Docket #9) ("Amended Complaint").
The USPS now moves for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
See Def. Motion. The USPS attached to its notice of motion
various declarations including declarations of USPS employees
along with a statement pursuant to Local Civil Rule 56.1. See
Def. Motion; see generally Local Civ. R. 56.1(a) (requiring a
party moving for summary judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56
to submit "a separate, short and concise statement, in numbered
paragraphs, of the material facts as to which the moving party
contends there is no genuine issue to be tried"). It also
submitted a memorandum of law. See Memorandum of Law in Support
of Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, filed Feb. 15, 2005
(Docket # 14) ("Def. Mem.").
In response, Arline's attorney submitted a memorandum of law
that attached a copy of the amended complaint but did not attach
any affidavits or other evidence opposing the motion. See
Plaintiff's Brief in Opposition to Defendant's Motion, dated June
15, 2005 ("Pl. Opp. Mem."). The memorandum did not contain a
statement of facts. More significantly, Arline did not submit a
Rule 56.1 statement opposing the facts alleged in the USPS's Rule
56.1 statement as required by Local Civil Rule 56.1(b). On July
15, 2005, the USPS filed a reply brief. See Reply Memorandum of
Law in Further ...