Kea v. Donahoe

119 F.Supp.3d 723

David C. KEA, Sr., Plaintiff,

v.Patrick R. DONAHOE, Postmaster General of the United States, Defendant.

Case No. 13–12991.

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division.

Signed Aug. 13, 2015.

David C. Helm, Plymouth, MI, for Plaintiff.

Carolyn Ann Almassian, U.S. Attorney, Grand Rapids, MI, for Defendant.

OPINION & ORDER

SEAN F. COX, District Judge.

Plaintiff brought this employment discrimination action against his employer, the United States Postal Service, alleging unlawful race discrimination and retaliation claims under Title VII. The matter is currently before the Court on Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. The parties have briefed the issues and the Court heard oral argument on August 6, 2015. For the reasons set forth below, the Court shall GRANT THE MOTION IN PART AND DENY IT IN PART. The motion shall be GRANTED to the extent that Defendant is entitled to summary judgment in its favor with respect to the following claims: 1) Plaintiff's disparate-treatment race-discrimination claim based upon being placed on off-duty status in 2010; and 2) Plaintiff's hostile work environment claims based on both race and retaliation. The Motion shall be DENIED in all other respects. As such, the following claims shall proceed to trial: 1) Plaintiff's disparate-treatment race-discrimination claim based upon the vehicle restriction; and 2) Plaintiff's retaliation claim based upon the vehicle restriction.

BACKGROUND

Acting pro se, Plaintiff David C. Kea, Sr. ("Plaintiff" or "Kea") filed this action against Defendant Patrick R. Donahoe, the Postmaster General of the United States Postal Service and two individual defendants. Plaintiff later obtained counsel and dismissed the individual defendants, leaving the Postal Service as the only remaining defendant.

Plaintiff's "Amended Complaint Second With Jury Demand" is Plaintiff's operative Complaint in this action and it includes the following counts: 1) "Unlawful Discrimination Based On Race/National Origin" in violation of Title VII (Count I); 2) "Retaliation" in violation of Title VII (Count II); and 3) "Discrimination Through Conflict of Interest and Criminal Activity in Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981A" (Count III). But on June 19, 2014, Plaintiff stipulated to dismissing Count III and striking his request for punitive damages. (See Docket Entry No. 37). Thus, only Counts I and II remain.

Following the close of discovery, Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. (Docket Entry No. 43).

This Court's practice guidelines, which are expressly included in the Scheduling Order issued in this case, provide, consistent with Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c) and (e), that:

a. The moving party's papers shall include a separate document entitled Statement of Material Facts Not in Dispute. The statement shall list in separately numbered paragraphs concise statements of each undisputed material fact, supported by appropriate citations to the record ...b. In response, the opposing party shall file a separate document entitled Counter–Statement of Disputed Facts. The counter-statement shall list in separately numbered paragraphs following the order or the movant's statement, whether each of the facts asserted by the moving party is admitted or denied and shall also be supported by appropriate citations to the record. The Counter–Statement shall also include, in a separate section, a list of each issue of material fact as to which it is contended there is a genuine issue for trial.

c. All material facts as set forth in the Statement of Material Facts Not in Dispute shall be deemed admitted unless controverted in the Counter–Statement of Disputed Facts.

(Docket Entry No. 30 at 2–3).

Both parties complied with the practice guidelines. Thus, as to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, Defendants submitted a Statement of Material Facts Not In Dispute, which shall be referred to as "Def.'s Stmt.", and Plaintiff filed a Counter–Statement of Disputed Facts, which shall be referred to as "Pl.'s Stmt." (Docket Entry Nos. 43–1 and 46–2).

The following material facts are gleaned from the evidence submitted by the parties, viewed in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, the non-moving party.

Plaintiff began working for the United States Postal Service on August 18, 1984, as a part-time flexible letter carrier at the Plymouth, Michigan Post Office. (Def.'s and Pl.'s Stmt. at ¶ 1). Plaintiff became a full-time, regular letter carrier in October of 1985. (Id. at ¶ 2).

In December of 1989, the Postal Service issued Plaintiff a Notice of Removal for failing to disclose his criminal history. The Postal Service later reduced his Notice of Removal to a 7–day suspension. (Def.'s and Pl.'s Stmt. at ¶ 3).

Plaintiff continued to work as a letter carrier until April 2008. (Def.'s and Pl.'s Stmt. at ¶ 4). While employed as a letter carrier, Plaintiff filed several EEO complaints.

Plaintiff's EEO Activity While Employed As A Letter Carrier

On April 1, 2004, Plaintiff filed an EEO Complaint alleging race discrimination and retaliation after the Postal Service denied him the opportunity to review his Official Personnel Folder (OPF). Plaintiff also alleged being denied the ability to move freely about the post office because of sexual harassment allegations. (Def.'s and Pl.'s Stmt. at ¶ 5; Ex. I to Pl.'s Br.).

In June of 2004, Plaintiff filed an EEO Complaint, alleging race and age discrimination. Plaintiff alleged that he was denied a change in schedule while other employees, some of whom are white and younger, were allowed to change their schedules. (Ex. I to Pl.'s Br.).

In February of 2005, Plaintiff filed an EEO Complaint, alleging he had been retaliated against in various ways. (Id. ).

In June of 2005, Plaintiff filed an EEO Complaint alleging retaliation after the Postal Service allegedly denied him time to complete EEO paperwork. (Def.'s and Pl.'s Stmt. at ¶ 8).

Plaintiff Bids On And, Ultimately Receives, A VOMA Position

A Vehicle Operation Maintenance Assistant ("VOMA") is a job position at the Postal Service that services vehicle repairs including vehicle checks for flat tires, inoperable vehicle lights and electrical issues. VOMAs also arrange for tow trucks from Postal Service contractors when necessary and locate parts at any of the Vehicle Maintenance Facilities ("VMF facilities"). VOMAs are responsible for bills related to vehicle repairs including verifying that repairs were completed and that the repair cost is accurate. VOMAs also hire contractors. (Def.'s and Pl.'s Stmt. at ¶¶ 9–12). VOMAs are stationed in Plymouth, Westland, and Canton, Michigan.

Ken Ross (who is white) worked as a VOMA at Livonia; Karen Blackney (who is white) worked as a VOMA at Westland, Glen Erickson (who is white) worked as a VOMA at Canton.

The Postal Service also employs mechanics at the VMFs. Mechanics inspect vehicles, replace parts, and perform repairs. At the times relevant to Plaintiff's complaint, the Livonia VMF mechanics included: Bryan Ferguson (who is African–American), David Stroshein (who is white), David Briscoe (who is white), Walter Sajewski (who is white), Mike Dillman (who is white), and Paul Guevara (who is Hispanic). (Def.'s and Pl.'s Stmt. at ¶¶ 15–16).

Gary Robinson supervised the mechanics and VOMAs at the Livonia VMF. Robinson worked as a manager of the Livonia VMF from 2003 until March of 2011. Carol Piechota works as the auto parts storekeeper at the Livonia VMF. Piechota has worked in that position since 2006 and Robinson was her supervisor. (Def.'s and Pl.'s Stmt. at ¶¶ 17–19).

In November of 2007, Plaintiff bid on a VOMA position at the Plymouth, Michigan Post Office. Although the Postal Service posted that VOMA position at the Plymouth Post Office, Robinson would be that VOMA's supervisor. After Plaintiff bid on that VOMA position, Robinson removed the VOMA posting from the Plymouth Post Office and instead posted it at the Livonia VMF. As a result of moving the VOMA posting to Livonia, Plaintiff, a Plymouth Post Office employee, could no longer bid on the VOMA position. Instead, only the Livonia VMF employees could bid on the VOMA posting. (Def.'s and Pl.'s Stmt. at ¶¶ 20–23).

According to Plaintiff, Jack Warner, a retired VOMA, informed Robinson that Plaintiff intended to bid on the VOMA position once the Postal Service posted it at the Plymouth Post Office. (Def.'s and Pl.'s Stmt. at ¶ 26).

Plaintiff filed an EEO Complaint over the VOMA position. (Pl.'s Dep. at 26). Both Plaintiff and Robinson attended an EEO redress concerning Plaintiff's bid for the VOMA position. In resolution of Plaintiff's EEO Complaint, the Postal Service re-posted the VOMA position at the Plymouth Post Office. (Def.'s and Pl.'s Stmt. at ¶ 31).

In April of 2008, Plaintiff bid for and received the VOMA position at the Plymouth Post Office. (Def.'s and Pl.'s Stmt. at ¶ 32).

After the Postal Service awarded Plaintiff the VOMA position, Robinson re-posted the hours by changing the off-day to Tuesday. The Post Office, however, returned the hours to those listed on the original VOMA position, with Saturday as the off-day. Union representative Don Oziemski asked Robinson why he changed the off days and Robinson responded "because he can." (Def.'s and Pl.'s Stmt. at ¶¶ 33–35).

On May 16, 2008, Plaintiff wrote a letter to the then-Postmaster of the Plymouth Post Office, stating that employees at that office harassed him because they wanted a white employee named Lee Wetherford to receive the VOMA position. The Plymouth office employees, including Wetherford's wife, made comments to Plaintiff about washing their windows. The Plymouth Post Office employees, according to Plaintiff, also took tools out of Plaintiff's truck. Plaintiff complained to Robinson and Robinson bought Plaintiff new tools. (Def.'s and Pl.'s Stmt. at ¶¶ 36–37). Plaintiff also stated in that letter than an unidentified employee would not give him keys that he needed, and it took management a week to find them. (Ex. B to Pl.'s Br.). Plaintiff also complained...