Keller v. Dejoy

1

SANDY M. KELLER v. LOUIS DEJOY, UNITED STATES POSTMASTER GENERAL

Civil Action No. 19-13191

United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana

January 10, 2022

SECTION (3)

ORDER & REASONS

DANA M. DOUGLAS, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

Before the Court is a Motion for Summary Judgment (Rec. Doc. No. 43) filed by defendant, Louis DeJoy, United States Postmaster General. The motion is opposed. (Rec. Doc. No. 59).

I. BACKGROUND

On October 18, 2019, Plaintiff, Sandy M. Keller (“Keller”) brought a civil action for damages under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by 42 U.S.C. § 2000, et seq., and the Family Medical Leave Act of 1993, 29 U.S.C. § 2601, et seq., against Louis DeJoy, the Postmaster General of the United States Postal Service (“USPS”).

A. Judicial Complaint

Plaintiff is a white female who is employed by the USPS as a letter carrier. (Rec. Doc. No. 1). She asserts Title VII employment-discrimination claims against the USPS for race-based disparate treatment and hostile work environment, among others. Id. Plaintiff works at the Chalmette Post Office (“CPO”), and alleges that she was the victim of reverse racial discrimination by her direct supervisor, Gordon Tunnell (“Tunnell”) and the CPO Postmaster at the time, Denise Trepagnier (“Trepagnier”), both of whom are black. Id. Plaintiff alleges that during their tenure, Tunnell and Trepagnier engaged in a pattern and practice of treating black employees more favorably than white employees with respect to attendance, leave, and enforcement of USPS policies. (Rec. Doc. No. 59, p. 2-3). Additionally, Keller alleges that Tunnell and Trepagnier tolerated, condoned, and encouraged a variety of workplace behavior from black employees that amounted to prejudicial, disparate treatment of white employees by allowing black employees to harass, threaten, and assault white employees without fear of termination or serious discipline. Id. at 3. Furthermore, Plaintiff alleges that black employees were permitted to engage in acts that white employees would be disciplined or terminated for, such as failing to deliver certified mail, failing to report leave time, verbally harassing or assaulting co-workers, stalking co-workers, bringing illegal drugs to USPS property, stealing mail, bearing false witness to workplace incidents, and committing other felonious crimes on USPS property. (Rec. Doc. No. 1, p. 6). Plaintiff contends this contributed to a hostile and discriminatory work environment. Id. at 7.

Plaintiff indicates a number of specific occurrences. On April 27, 2017, Plaintiff states that Whitney Berry (“Berry”), a black employee, committed battery upon Kevin Thomas (“Thomas”), a white employee. Id. Berry further threatened that her boyfriend would come to the CPO and “blow up the place.” Id. When her boyfriend did arrive, an employee called 911 and Berry was arrested, and the St. Bernard district attorney filed a bill of information instituting charges against her, and ultimately convicting her of simple battery. Id. Keller witnessed this incident and testified at the criminal trial against Berry. Keller contends, however, that Tunnell “tried to interfere with employee testimony by reassigning potential witnesses to remote routes that would render them unavailable for the criminal trial.” Id. at 8.

On November 15, 2017, Tunnell announced that Berry would be returning to work at the CPO, causing Plaintiff to fear she would be harmed, and to begin “shaking uncontrollably” and feel “sick with anxiety.” Id. This resulted in Plaintiff seeking medical treatment for anxiety, using FMLA leave time for treatment. Id. at 9. Keller alleges that because she used FMLA leave to seek treatment and because she testified against Berry, Tunnell began harassing her, leading to the EEOC complaint. Id. That complaint includes a number of claims, addressed in greater detail below, involving incidents ranging from the alteration of her timesheets to threats from another coworker, Shantrell Berfect (“Berfect”), who plaintiff alleges threatened to “whip [Plaintiff's] ass” in front of her supervisors who did nothing to address these issues. Id. at 12. Keller contends that she “feared for her life that she would be assaulted or killed by Berfect.” Id. at 13. She continues to seek treatment with physicians over the incidents, requiring therapy and medication. Id.

B. Administrative Complaint

On January 6, 2018, Plaintiff submitted an EEO Administrative Complaint to the USPS. (Rec. Doc. No. 43, p. 4). In it, she alleges discrimination on the basis of race in three instances: (1) November 21, 2017, when she became aware that her request for sick leave was denied by Tunnell and she was charged with being absent without official leave (“AWOL”), (2) November 21, 2017, when she was sent an Absence Inquiry letter by Tunnell, and (3) November 21, 2017, when she became aware that her request for Family Medical Leave was denied. (Rec. Doc. No. 43-4, p. 1). On January 25, 2018, the Postal Service accepted her complaint alleging her sick leave was denied and she was charged with being AWOL. Id. at 4. The other two claims, regarding the absence inquiry letter and the denial of FMLA coverage, were dismissed. Id.

On March 29, 2018, Plaintiff amended her EEO Administrative Complaint to include (1) March 3, 2018, when she became aware that her annual leave request for the second week of vacation was not processed and the time was changed to leave without pay (“LWOP”), (2) March 16, 2018, when she was threatened by a coworker [Shantrell Berfect] in a meeting being held in Trepagnier's office and (3) on March 20, 2018 when, after reporting being threatened by a coworker [Berfect] in front of Postmaster Trepagnier, management failed to properly address the matter. (Rec. Doc. No. 43-5, p. 1). On April 2, 2018, the USPS accepted all three of these amended issues. Id. at 4.

While the EEO Administrative Complaint, as amended, was pending, Plaintiff withdrew her request for a hearing. Accordingly, Administrative Judge Erania Ebron issued an Order and Decision dismissing Plaintiff's EEO Administrative Complaint. On October 24, 2019, the USPS issued a Notice of Final Action, which implemented the Administrative Judge's dismissal.

C. The Instant Motion

In the instant motion, the USPS advances the dismissal of several of Keller's claims.^[1] First, the Defendant argues that during discovery, Plaintiff identified many events that occurred in late 2018 and 2019 which she did not identify in her Complaint, and failed to amend or initiate a new EEO Administrative Claim based on these new events. (Rec. Doc. No. 43-1, p. 2). Therefore, Defendant contends that Plaintiff failed to exhaust her administrative remedies regarding this portion of her race-based hostile work environment claim. Id.

Second, regarding Plaintiff's race-based disparate treatment claim, USPS contends that specific incidents Keller described were not adverse employment actions, and that even the incidents involving mishandling of leave requests cannot be attributed to race. Id. Furthermore, USPS contends that even if this Court determines that Keller is able to establish the prima facie elements of her disparate treatment claim, Tunnell had legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for acting as he did. Id.

Finally, USPS argues that Keller cannot establish the prima facie elements of her hostile work environment claim because she fails to establish that the alleged harassment was race-based or that it was severe and pervasive enough to constitute a hostile work environment. Id. Plaintiff, however, contends that she is not required to exhaust her administrative remedies for acts subsequent to her EEO Administrative Claim. (Rec. Doc. No. 59, p. 2). She states that all of the actions outside the relevant time period simply serve to provide additional evidence of the same hostile environment raised in the EEO complaint. Id. Further, Keller contends that issues of material fact exist as to whether Tunnell and Trepagnier were guided by racial animus in their acts and omissions and whether the proffered non-discriminatory reasons are pretext. Id. Finally, Plaintiff contends that her allegations establish a prima facie case of hostile work environment. Id.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Summary judgment is appropriate where the evidence before a court shows “that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). A fact is “material” if proof of its existence or nonexistence would affect the outcome of the lawsuit under applicable law in the case. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A dispute regarding a material fact is “genuine” if the evidence is such that a reasonable fact finder could render a verdict for the nonmoving party. Id.

“[A] party seeking summary judgment always bears the initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its motion, and identifying those portions of ‘the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any ' which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986) (quoting Anderson, 477 U.S. at 247). “The moving party may meet its burden to demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact by pointing out that the record contains no support for the non-moving party's claim.” Stahl v. Novartis Pharm. Corp., 283 F.3d 254, 263 (5th Cir. 2002). After the moving party has met its burden, if the non-moving party is unable to identify anything in the record to support its claim, summary judgment is appropriate. Id. “The court need consider only the...