Callanan v. Runyun

• Decision Date: 24 August 1994
• Docket Number: Civ. No. 3-92-807.
• Citation: 903 F. Supp. 1285
• Parties: Rhonda CALLANAN, Plaintiff, v. Marvin T. RUNYUN, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota

903 F. Supp. 1285

Rhonda CALLANAN, Plaintiff, v. Marvin T. RUNYUN, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Defendant.

Civ. No. 3-92-807.

United States District Court, D. Minnesota, Third Division.

August 24, 1994.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Kenneth Ross White, Farrish Johnson & Maschka, Mankato, MN, Kevin O'C Green, Green Law Office, Mankato, MN, for plaintiff.

Lonnie F. Bryan, U.S. Atty. Office, Minneapolis, MN, for defendant.

ORDER

KYLE, District Judge.

Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Erickson's Order and Report and Recommendation. The Order, from which no appeal has been taken, grants Defendant's Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Request for a Jury Trial and for Compensatory Damages. The R and R recommends that Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment be granted with respect to Plaintiff's hostile environment and retaliation claims and denied with respect to Plaintiff's disparate treatment claims. Defendant has filed timely objections to the R and R "to the limited extent that it does not recommend dismissal of plaintiff's disparate treatment claim." Counsel for defendant "suggests" that a further hearing might be appropriate in order to receive additional factual information by way of evidence and affidavits. No explanation is advanced as to why this additional material was not submitted with the Motion for Summary Judgment. The Court does not intend to reopen the summary judgment hearing.

The Court has conducted a de novo review of those portions of the R and R to which objections have been interposed. The Court adopts the thorough and well reasoned Report and Recommendation of Judge Erickson.

Upon all the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS ORDERED that Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED with respect to Plaintiff's hostile environment and retaliation claim and DENIED with respect to Plaintiff's disparate treatment claim.

ORDER AND REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

ERICKSON, United States Magistrate Judge.

At Duluth, in the District of Minnesota, this 27th day of July, 1994.

I. Introduction

This matter came before the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to a special assignment, made in accordance with the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), upon the Defendant's Motion to Strike the Plaintiff's request for a Jury trial and upon the Defendant's Motion To Dismiss or, in the alternative, for Summary Judgment.

A Hearing on the Motions was conducted, at which time the Plaintiff appeared by Kevin O'C. Green, Esq., and the Defendant appeared by Lonnie F. Bryan, Assistant United States Attorney. Following the submission of post-Hearing briefs, the issues are now ripe for determination.

For reasons which follow, we grant the Defendant's Motion to Strike,¹ and we recommend that the Motion for Summary Judgment be granted in part and denied in part.²

II. Factual and Procedural Background

The United States Postal Service hired Rhonda Callanan ("Callanan") as a part-time, flexible distribution clerk at the Mankato Post Office. In 1989, Callanan requested a transfer to a part-time, flexible position on the day shift, and the Post Office approved the transfer. As a part-time, flexible city carrier, Callanan sorted, delivered and collected mail on various routes around Mankato, and she filled in for other carriers when they were on sick leave, vacation or were otherwise absent.

Although Callanan had experienced no difficulties in her original clerk position, she confronted a series of problems in her position as a carrier. Callanan claims that her difficulties were caused by a hostile work environment, and by her employer's disparate treatment, which was caused by her gender. In this latter respect, Callanan notes that, out of 40 or more carriers assigned to the Mankato Post Office, only a handful are female and, of them, at least two have complained that their treatment in the workplace is less favorable than their male co-employees. She also contends that her supervisors have assigned her less preferable delivery and collection routes than assigned to the male carriers, who were in comparable positions, and who had equal or less seniority.³ Callanan also alleges that she was treated unfairly, when compared to male employees, in the area of discipline.⁴

Specifically, in March of 1990, the Postal Service issued a letter of warning to Callanan when she left mail in an unlocked postal vehicle. Callanan contends that she did not receive a copy of the letter, and that she did not know it existed until three months after the incident, when a former supervisor told her of it. On that same date in March, another part-time carrier, Milton Zernechel ("Zernechel"), also received a letter of warning relating to the same type of offense. Zernechel has testified to his belief, however, that he was disciplined solely to cover the fact that the Postal Service had issued a similar letter to Callanan.

On the Plaintiff's behalf, the National Association of Letter Carriers filed a grievance with the Post Office over the letter of warning. The Plaintiff asserts that she was not allowed to participate in all of the proceedings, which were intended to resolve her grievance, and that the union representative who represented her, Larry Buckmeister ("Buckmeister"), did not advise her of any settlement negotiations or of any offer of settlement. Callanan contends that management knew that Buckmeister was antagonistic toward her and, yet, allowed him to represent her and accepted his word that she had refused to sign the grievance letter, and had agreed to settle the matter.⁵ The settlement in question allowed for the removal of the warning letter from the Callanan's personnel file but, according to the Callanan, she had not accepted the settlement proposal.⁶

The Plaintiff also alleges that Brian Ziemer ("Ziemer"), who supervised her immediate supervisors, informed her that she would have an "uphill battle" if she were to succeed as a carrier because of the disciplinary incident.⁷ Ziemer does not remember making any similar comment to Zernechel, who had been cited for having committed the same offense. In addition, Callanan claims that one of her immediate supervisors, Terry Walls ("Walls"), told her that she thought Callanan was going to go back to being a clerk because she could not handle the carrier job.

In August of 1990, Callanan received a threatening phone call⁸ at her residence that she believed was made by Al Beahm ("Beahm"), a part-time carrier who had unsuccessfully competed with her for a job bid.⁹ Callanan reported the call to Postmaster James Kirschbaum ("Kirschbaum") who interviewed Beahm as a part of his investigation of the matter. Beahm verbally denied calling Callanan at home and, subsequently, he wrote a letter to the Postmaster to that same effect. Kirschbaum related Beahm's denials to Callanan, and requested that Callanan provide him with any additional evidence that would support her suspicion that Beahm had made the telephone call. Finding no evidence that Beahm was the guilty party, Kirschbaum did not discipline Beahm for the incident. Kirschbaum does recall telling Callanan to contact the local postal inspection service or the police if she wished to pursue her complaint, but Callanan denies that any such comment was made by Kirschbaum, and she also denies any request on his part for other evidence which would incriminate Beahm.¹⁰

As a result of the foregoing, Callanan filed a Complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") which, apparently,¹¹ alleged that she had been treated differently than male employees with respect to the terms and conditions of her employment. She also filed a stress claim with the United States Department of Labor, which sought Worker's Compensation benefits. While that claim was being processed, Callanan's psychologist concluded that she was unable to work with other postal carriers. On May 6, 1991, Callanan requested a temporary, light-duty assignment in which she would have no contact with other postal carriers. Kirschbaum approved such a lightduty position for Callanan, and she was assigned work as a mail sorter in the evening hours.

Following her assignment as a mail sorter, an incident occurred in which two sexually explicit pictures were left in an area where Callanan would have been expected to frequent during the course of her work assignment.¹² Callanan found the materials and turned them over to a supervisor in another department who, Callanan contends, promptly misplaced them.¹³ According to Callanan, no investigation was conducted and one of Callanan's supervisors characterized the pictures, at least in her view, as "pretty much it's no big deal." Callanan Deposition, at p. 111. As a result of the picture incident and management's resultant failure to take remedial action, Callanan filed a second EEOC Complaint, alleging reprisal/retaliation that was attributable to her having filed her first Complaint.¹⁴

On June 21, 1991, the U.S. Department of Labor granted Callanan's Worker's Compensation claim. Subsequently, the Postal Service offered Callanan a limited duty assignment, which would have consisted of a 36-hour workweek. Callanan refused the assignment because of the hours involved. In August of 1991, Callanan's psychologist recommended a 20-hour workweek with minimal contacts with her co-employees and, in October of 1991, the psychologist recommended that Callanan be placed on disability status, or be allowed to seek alternative employment. On November 2, 1991, the Postmaster advised Callanan that she would be placed on disability status because the Postal Service could not provide her with work which was within her medical restrictions.

On December 4, 1992, Callanan filed this action alleging sexual harassment and discrimination, and retaliation under Title VII and under the Minnesota Human Rights Act ("MHRA"). See, Title 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a), as...