Grier v. Casey, C-C-85-0246-P.

• Decision Date: 10 September 1986
• Docket Number: No. C-C-85-0246-P.,C-C-85-0246-P.
• Citation: 643 F. Supp. 298
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of North Carolina
• Parties: Christean M. GRIER, Plaintiff, v. Albert V. CASEY, in his official capacity as Postmaster General of the United States Postal Service, Defendant.

643 F. Supp. 298

Christean M. GRIER, Plaintiff, v. Albert V. CASEY, in his official capacity as Postmaster General of the United States Postal Service, Defendant.

No. C-C-85-0246-P.

United States District Court, W.D. North Carolina, Charlotte Division.

August 26, 1986.

As Amended September 10, 1986.

Regan A. Miller, James, McElory & Diehl, Charlotte, N.C., for plaintiff.

Clifford C. Marshall, U.S. Atty., Asheville, N.C., John C. Oldenburg, Sr. Asst. Regional Labor Counsel, Office of Labor Law, Memphis, Tenn., for defendant.

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER

ROBERT D. POTTER, Chief Judge.

This is an action by the Plaintiff against the United States Postal Service alleging that she was terminated from the Postal Service because of her race (black) and sex (female). She also is claiming sexual harassment.

This Court has jurisdiction under Title 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16.

The action came on to be heard before the undersigned sitting without a jury on July 22, 23, and 24, 1986 in Charlotte, North Carolina. The Plaintiff was represented by Regan Miller, Attorney at Law and the Defendant was represented by John C. Oldenburg and Ed Lyons, Attorneys at Law.

After hearing the testimony of the witnesses and examining the Exhibits admitted into evidence, the Court will review the evidence and make Findings of Fact.

REVIEW OF EVIDENCE

1. Plaintiff's employment history after graduating from high school in 1968 was as best as could be determined from her evasive answers:

(a) Wachovia Bank for approximately 1½ years (Plaintiff's Dep. p. 8, lines 6-23). She resigned for personal problems (Plaintiff's Dep. p. 8, line 25).

(b) Consolidated Diesel 1971-1972 (Plaintiff's Dep. p. 11, lines 6-16).

(c) Sealtest 1972-1973 (Plaintiff's Dep. p. 14, lines 2-15).

(d) Northwestern Bank 1974-1976 (Plaintiff's Dep. p. 16, lines 3-18).

(e) First Union Bank 1976-1978 (Plaintiff's Dep. P. 17, line 10). Was told "Leave or you'll be fired". (Plaintiff's Dep. p. 23, Lines 5-6; p. 23, lines 12-25). She was denied unemployment compensation (p. 24, lines 1-24). She also filed a complaint with the EEOC and was given a notice of right to sue. (Plaintiff's Dep. p. 25, lines 1-14).

(f) Mecklenburg County 1978 (Plaintiff's Dep. p. 28, lines 21-25; and p. 29, line 1). She was terminated because of personality conflicts (Plaintiff's Dep. p. 30, lines 2-21; p. 39, lines 21-25).

(g) Federal Reserve Bank 1979 (Plaintiff's Dep. p. 40, lines 18-24). She was discharged from Federal Reserve for fighting. (Plaintiff's Dep. p. 41, lines 18-25; pp. 42-44 and trial testimony).

2. Her next employment was with the Defendant as a part-time flexible distribution clerk subject to a 90-day probationary period. She was assigned to the third shift of Tour III, with Leroy Galant as her supervisor. In spite of her employment history and having been fired from the previous jobs, she did not answer truthfully the questions on the Defendant's employment application to indicate she had been fired within the past five years. (See Defendant's Exhibit 17, Question 15). This does not help the Plaintiff on the issue of credibility.

3. At end of thirtieth day of probation, Plaintiff received her evaluation, (Plaintiff's Ex. 2A). Out of ten factors in which she received an evaluation there were three unsatisfactory ratings; i.e., general progress in learning the job, productivity, and work habits and attendance. The evaluator's remarks were that she needed to be more prompt, and needed to exercise more care as to her excessive talking. The form was checked to indicate that even though she was not a fully satisfactory employee retention was merited.

4. Plaintiff's sixty day evaluation was satisfactory in all factors except attendance. (Plaintiff's Exhibit 2B). It was still noted that "This employee, although not fully satisfactory at present, merits continued employment."

5. The Plaintiff, by January 27, 1981, had completed her training on the Multi-Position Letter Sorting Machine (MPLSM), which included 47 hours in "keying" the mail. She had also received six hours of training in ledge loading and sweeping. After the training, she was assigned to work on MPSLM's and on a number of occasions was assigned to a "flip crew" which was a crew that moved to different MPSLM's relieving the regular crews who were on break or at lunch. This required her to clock in and out of various operations by using her ID badge in connection with an electronic timekeeping system.

6. After she was assigned to the MPSLM's she failed to use the time clock correctly, was confused as to her assignment, and did not follow the other crew members of the flip crew when she moved from one machine to another, resulting in a disruption to the efficiency of the crew's operation.

7. Plaintiff's Exhibit 11 indicates nine other individuals who were hired approximately the same date as the Plaintiff. Of these there were six white males and three white females. One of the white females (Evans) resigned, and one white male (Collier) was terminated.

8. The Court has examined Plaintiff's Exhibits 3A, B, C; 4A, B, C; 5A, B, C; 6A, B, C; 7A, B, C; 8A, B, C; 9A, B, C; 10A, B, C, with reference to the evaluation of Payne through Collier as shown on Plaintiff's Exhibit 11.

9. George Payne's Evaluation (white male) was not remarkable. On his 30-day evaluation, (Exhibit 3A) he was told to cut down on talking, and it was noted that he was not fully satisfactory but merited retention. (Same as Plaintiff).

On his 60-day evaluation (Plaintiff's Ex. 3B) is was noted that he had not qualified on LSM in allotted time, and though not fully satisfactory merited retention (Same as Plaintiff.) On his 80-day evaluation he had no unsatisfactory factors and was found to be a satisfactory employee (as opposed to Grier).

10. James Cobb's Evaluation (white male) Plaintiff's Exhibits 4A, and B, 4C. His 30 day evaluation was very poor. He was unsatisfactory in six factors, was found to have no initiative, had not progressed, had a very unconcerned attitude, had been out twice and had not grasped things as he should have. He was found to be not fully satisfactory but merits continued employment (same as Plaintiff). He was told that if his performance, attitude and overall outlook did not improve in next thirty days he would be terminated.

On his sixty day evaluation Cobb made a complete turnaround. He had no unsatisfactory factors, was found to be satisfactory and was recommended for retention. Cobb's 80-day evaluation was similarly good.

11. William Barker's Evaluation (white male) Plaintiff's Exhibits 5A, 5B, 5C. His 30-day evaluation showed no unsatisfactory factors and he was found to be a satisfactory employee and retention was recommended. However, his 60-day evaluation showed he had not qualified on the LSM, was found to be a not fully satisfactory employee, but merited continued employment. His 80-day evaluation indicated all factors to be satisfactory.

12. Terry Hartley's Evaluation (white male) Plaintiff's Exhibits 6A, 6B, 6C. His 30-day evaluation indicated one unsatisfactory factor in that he needed to gain a more positive attitude about USPS. He was found to be an unsatisfactory employee, but merited retention (same as Plaintiff).

Hartley's 60-day evaluation had one unsatisfactory factor—he talked too much at case. Again he was found to be not fully satisfactory but merited retention (same as Plaintiff). His 80-day evaluation indicated no unsatisfactory factors and he was found to be a satisfactory employee who merited retention.

Hartley was warned that if he failed to meet the requirements of PTF Distribution Clerk, he would be terminated. (Plaintiff's Exhibit 6E).

13. Sheila Broadway's (Ivester) Evaluation (white female) Plaintiff's Exhibits 7A, 7B, 7C. Her 30-day evaluation had one unsatisfactory factor—she talked too much. She was found to be not fully satisfactory, but merited retention (same as Plaintiff). Her 60-day evaluation contained no unsatisfactory factors, and she was found to be a satisfactory employee whose retention was recommended. Her 80-day evaluation included one unsatisfactory factor—she had been out. She was informed that absenteeism would not be tolerated and Galant indicated that "she has taken what I've said in the proper perspective and will not cause us problems in this regard later." She was found to be not fully satisfactory but merited continued employment.

14. Tamara Lipe (white female) Plaintiff's Exhibit 8A, 8B, 8C. All factors on Ms. Lipe's Evaluation were satisfactory on the 30, 60, and 80-day evaluations. She was also found to be a satisfactory employee with retention recommended on all evaluations.

15. William Helms (white male) Plaintiff's Exhibits 9A, 9B, and 9C. Helms' 30-day evaluation showed all factors to be satisfactory. He was found to be satisfactory and retention was recommended. His 60-day evaluation contained one unsatisfactory factor—he was not qualified on the LSM in the allotted time and was informed that if he did not qualify during his 80-day probation, he would be terminated.

He was found not fully satisfactory at that time, but merited continued employment (same as Plaintiff).

His 80-day evaluation indicated all factors satisfactory and was found to be satisfactory at that time and retention was recommended.

16. Thomas Collier (white male) Plaintiff's Exhibit 10A, 10B, 10C.

His 30-day evaluation showed two unsatisfactory factors; i.e., his productivity and work habits and his attendance—punctuality and reliability. The comments were that he needed to be more consistent—at times okay, other times appears disorganized— needed to make sure of reporting time and to report as scheduled.

He was found not fully satisfactory, but merited continued employment.

His 60-day evaluation showed one unsatisfactory factor in that he had not qualified in allowed time. He was found to be not fully satisfactory, but merited continued employment.

His 80-day evaluation...