Goodson v. Dejoy

1

MELISSA M. GOODSON, Plaintiff, v. LOUIS DEJOY, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Defendant.

Civil Action No. 19-cv-00301-CMA-MEH

United States District Court, D. Colorado

August 17, 2022

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO United States District Judge

This matter is before the Court on Defendant Louis DeJoy's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 82). For the following reasons, the Motion is granted.

I. BACKGROUND

This case involves a lengthy factual and procedural history. The Court limits its recitation to the facts that are relevant to the instant Motion.^[1]

Plaintiff Melissa Goodson began working for the United States Postal Service (“USPS”) in 1997. (Doc. # 92 at 3.) In 2000, she suffered an on-the-job injury and returned to work with temporary medical restrictions. (Id.) Her restrictions became permanent in 2005. (Doc. # 92-1 at 44 212.) Ms. Goodson asserts that she is a member of three protected classes on the basis of sex (female), race (African American), and disability. (Doc. # 65 at ¶ 20-21.)

In 2005, Ms. Goodson successfully applied for (“bid on”) a permanent position as a mail processing clerk. (Doc. # 92-1 at 148.) On March 28, 2005, USPS informed Ms. Goodson that she could take the job only if she requested and obtained reasonable accommodations or provided medical certification that she could do the job without restrictions. (Id. at 148, 212.) Ms. Goodson then filed an Equal Employment Opportunity (“EEO”) complaint alleging disability discrimination. (Id. at 182.) She also requested accommodations from the USPS' District Reasonable Accommodation Committee (“DRAC”). (Id. at 94.) On June 8, 2005, after the DRAC reviewed Ms. Goodson's request, DRAC Coordinator Charmaine Ehrenshaft informed Ms. Goodson that she was not a “qualified individual” with a disability within the meaning of the Rehabilitation Act and, therefore, was not eligible for reasonable accommodation. (Id. at 188.)

Ms. Goodson settled her EEO complaint in 2007. (Id. at 68-69.) As part of that settlement, USPS extended to Ms. Goodson a “Permanent Modified Job Offer” to serve as a modified clerk on Tour III (1:30 to 10:00 PM) (“Tour III modified clerk position”). (Id. at 48.) Ms. Goodson performed in that position for the next three years. (Id. at 11.)

On January 12, 2010, USPS removed Ms. Goodson from her Tour III modified clerk position. (Id.) USPS stated that the duties Ms. Goodson had been performing were no longer necessary and that the position was no longer available as part of the National Reassessment Process (“NRP”).^[2] (Id. at 66, 93.) On the same day, USPS presented Ms. Goodson with a different offer of modified assignment as a modified mailhandler. (Id. at 64.) Ms. Goodson responded that she “was neither refusing or accepting” the offer, but that she requested time to consider it. (Id. at 63.) USPS indicated that there were no other jobs available that fit within her restrictions and considered her lack of answer to be a refusal. (Id. at 64, 66.) Ms. Goodson was then placed on leave without pay (“LWOP”) status. (Id. at 66.)

On January 25, 2010, Ms. Goodson contacted the EEO office to initiate another disability discrimination complaint alleging denial of reasonable accommodation when USPS removed her from her Tour III modified clerk position. (Id. at 177, 179.) Ms. Goodson filed her formal EEO complaint on March 29, 2011. (Id. at 178.) USPS determined that the case presented “mixed complaint” issues, some of which had to be pursued on an appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board (“MSPB”). Accordingly, USPS bifurcated the case to separate the mixed issues. (Id.)

Ms. Goodson remained on LWOP status and did not work for approximately 18 months. (Id. at 66.) In October 2011, while the EEO complaint and MSPB appeal were pending, USPS offered Ms. Goodson another modified assignment to serve as a mail distribution clerk on Tour I (10:00 PM to 6:30 AM) and placed her in that role. (Id. at 46.)

In November 2011, Ms. Goodson bid for and was awarded a markup clerk-automated position. (Id. at 173.) The letter notifying Ms. Goodson that she had been awarded the position again stated that she needed to either provide medical certification that she was able to fully perform all of the duties of the bid position or request reasonable accommodation. (Id.) Ms. Goodson informed USPS that was “unable to accept the bid position” because her doctor said she could not perform the job without accommodations and the DRAC had previously determined that she was not a qualified individual with a disability. (Id. at 170.) Therefore, she remained in her Tour I mail distribution clerk position.

During MSPB proceedings, in May 2012, Ms. Goodson was informed by USPS attorney Brian Odom and Ms. Ehrenshaft that the Tour III modified clerk position Ms. Goodson held between 2007 and 2010 no longer existed because the duties were deemed unnecessary. (Doc. # 92 at 6; Doc. # 92-1 at 18-19, 39-40.) Ms. Goodson asserts that Mr. Odom and Ms. Ehrenshaft explained that two employees who were performing some of her prior duties on Tour III-Pat Marshall and Jim Harris-held bid positions to perform those duties. (Doc. # 92 at 6; Doc. 92-1 at 18.) This information was material to Ms. Goodson because she was aware that, pursuant to the union contract, USPS could not displace bid employees in order to provide her with a reasonable accommodation. (Doc. # 92 at 6.) Ms. Goodson contends that based on these representations and her understanding that she would not be able to return to her Tour III modified clerk position, she agreed to settle and dismiss her EEO and MSPB cases (“MSPB settlement agreement”) in May 2012. (Doc. # 92-1 at 233-34.)

In June 2013, Ms. Goodson was still performing in the Tour I mail distribution clerk position in which USPS had placed her in October 2011. (Doc. # 82-1 at 3-4.) On June 29, 2013, Ms. Goodson's supervisor, Mary Buckley, met with Ms. Goodson to discuss a number of unscheduled absences. (Id. at 7, 14-18.) When asked why Ms. Goodson had “failed to be regular in attendance,” Ms. Goodson responded, “I have sicknes [sic]” and “they put me on this shift but I was on Tour 3 before and [sic] was better for me.” (Id. at 15.) When asked if there was anything Ms. Buckley could do to assist Ms. Goodson in correcting her attendance, Ms. Goodson responded, “put me on Tour 3.” (Id.) At her deposition, Ms. Goodson explained that the Tour I night shift “was affecting [her] health” and that she “couldn't sleep being on Tour I.” (Id. at 8.) She further stated that she had anxiety and that she was moody, irritable, depressed, angry, frustrated, and tired. (Id.) Ms. Goodson explained that she would get home at 6:00 AM and had to attend doctor appointments and try to do errands, and therefore she had a difficult time falling asleep. (Id. at 8-9.) On July 18, 2013, Ms. Goodson received a letter of warning for failure to be regular in attendance. (Doc. # 92-1 at 110.)

Ms. Goodson asserts, and Defendant disputes, that on October 28, 2013, Ms. Goodson “discovered that Mr. Odom and Ms. Ehrenshaft concealed and misrepresented facts” regarding Ms. Goodson's Tour III modified clerk position during settlement negotiations in May 2012. (Doc. # 92 at 6-7; Doc. # 98 at 2.) Specifically, Ms. Goodson contends that USPS had “falsely informed [her] that the employees performing her prior Tour III duties were doing so from bid positions when that was not the case.” (Doc. # 92 at 7.) Defendant disputes that Mr. Odom and Ms. Ehrenshaft misrepresented anything during May 2012 settlement negotiations. (Doc. # 98 at 2.) Moreover, the parties dispute whether Pat Marshall and Jim Harris-the employees who were performing some of the duties of Ms. Goodson's prior Tour III modified clerk position-held bid positions as expeditors during the relevant time period, or whether they were unassigned/unencumbered postal support employees (“PSEs”) assigned to do those duties. (Doc. # 82 at 10; Doc. # 92 at 2, 17.)

On November 1, 2013, Ms. Goodson contacted an EEO counselor regarding her allegations that PSEs who did not hold bid positions were performing her prior Tour III modified clerk duties despite Ms. Goodson being told that the position was no longer available. (Doc. # 82-1 at 22.) She alleged discrimination based on race, sex, age, physical disability, and retaliation for prior EEO activity. (Id.) In addition, she alleged hostile work environment in part based on the letter of warning she received in June 2013 for attendance. (Id.)

In November 2013, Ms. Goodson was still in her Tour I modified clerk position. (Doc. # 92-1 at 51.) Employees, like Ms. Goodson, who did not hold bid positions were classified as unassigned regulars. (Doc. # 82-1 at 60, 65.) During that time frame, Ms. Ehrenshaft, on behalf of USPS, and Lawanda Davis, on behalf of the local union for clerks, reviewed unassigned regulars, the current limitations of those unassigned regulars, and available residual job vacancies, and they assigned unassigned regulars to those vacancies. (Id. at 68.) On November 20, 2013, USPS sent Ms. Goodson a notice reassigning her (pending qualification) to a sales and service distribution associate position at the Stockyards Station (“SSDA position”). (Doc. # 92-1 at 47.) The letter stated:

You are currently an unassigned/unencumbered full-time regular. You have not successfully bid on a new assignment and are being assigned to a residual vacancy. After review of your restrictions, it has been determined that you are able to perform the duties of this assignment. This requirement to place unassigned/unencumbered employees is mandatory. This administrative action is taken due to the need of the service and in accordance

...