Sanborn v. Postmaster General of United States, 062011 FED3, 10-4306
|Opinion Judge:||PER CURIAM|
|Party Name:||SHU-SHIA SANBORN, Appellant v. POSTMASTER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES|
|Judge Panel:||Before: BARRY, JORDAN AND GARTH, Circuit Judges|
|Case Date:||June 20, 2011|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit|
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) June 16, 2011
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (D.C. Civil Action No. 06-cv-04464) District Judge: Honorable Peter G. Sheridan
Sanborn, proceeding pro se, appeals the District Court's grant of summary judgment. For the reasons that follow, we will affirm.
Because we write only for the parties, who are familiar with the facts, we will not recite them except as necessary to the discussion. Sanborn worked for the United States Post Office (―USPS-) from 1985 to 1999. She left her position in May 1999 due to her Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (―PTSD-)-for which she blames her supervisor-and remained on leave thereafter until her 2002 termination. During that time, Sanborn applied for disability retirement benefits, which she was denied by the Office of Personnel Management. After her application was denied, her supervisor scheduled pre-disciplinary interviews which she repeatedly failed to attend or attempt to reschedule. On the date the third and final interview was scheduled, an attorney representing Sanborn called her supervisor, informed him that she would not participate, and faxed a letter from her psychiatrist, Dr. Kurami, which stated that Sanborn was ―deemed permanently disabled and will not be returning to work for the USPS ever.- Appellee's Supp. Elec. App'x, A91.
On January 23, 2002, over a month after the final interview date, the USPS issued Sanborn a Notice of Removal. In addition to a 33-month absence from work, the notice listed several additional facts supporting her termination, including her failure to attend the pre-disciplinary interviews and her doctor's letter indicating that she would not return to work. Appellee's Supp. Elec. App'x, A86-88.
Sanborn's termination led to this lawsuit, in which she alleged that her termination was discriminatory on the basis of her race, sex, and disability and that it was in retaliation for her earlier allegations of discrimination. After several months' discovery, Sanborn filed a motion to amend her complaint. The District Court denied that...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP