Mays v. U.S. Postal Service

• Decision Date: 15 September 1997
• Docket Number: No. 96-7010,96-7010
• Citation: 122 F.3d 43
• Parties: 71 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 44,950, 38 Fed.R.Serv.3d 1070, 11 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C 526 Elaine M. MAYS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, Marvin T. Runyon, in his individual and official capacity as Postmaster General, Larry Hall, in his individual and official capacity as Superintendent of Postal Operations-Auburn Post Office, Dan McLaughlin, in his individual and official capacity as Postmaster-Auburn Post Office, Defendants-Appellees. Non-Argument Calendar.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit

Page 43

122 F.3d 43

71 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 44,950, 38 Fed.R.Serv.3d 1070,

11 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C 526

Elaine M. MAYS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, Marvin T. Runyon, in his

individual and official capacity as Postmaster General,

Larry Hall, in his individual and official capacity as

Superintendent of Postal Operations-Auburn Post Office, Dan

McLaughlin, in his individual and official capacity as

Postmaster-Auburn Post Office, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 96-7010

Non-Argument Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Sept. 15, 1997.

Deborah M. Nickson, Montgomery, AL, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Redding Pitt, U.S. Attorney, Montgomery, AL, Lori J. Dym, U.S. Postal Service, Washington, DC, for Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama.

Before ANDERSON and BLACK, Circuit Judges, and CLARK, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal from the district court's grant of summary judgment to the defendants and denial of the plaintiff's motion for reconsideration in an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Essentially, the district court found that during the probationary period of her employment, the plaintiff had not met a requirement necessary for permanent employment and since she was terminated for that reason, the termination was not discriminatory. ¹ The plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration and submitted several affidavits in support of her claims, but the district court denied the motion. For the reasons listed below, we AFFIRM the district court's decisions.

The appellant is a black female who was hired by the Postal Service as a part-time flexible carrier and was required to undergo a 90-day probationary period, during which she was subject to discharge at any time. During the probationary period, her supervisors evaluated her performance at regular intervals. One requirement for permanent employment consisted of casing at least five linear feet of segmented mail per hour. When the appellant had not met the performance requirement for casing segmented mail after 60 days' employment, her immediate supervisor recommended that she be terminated. The Postmaster decided to give appellant additional time and training on the casing of segmented mail in order to enable her to meet the requirement. The appellant never met the requirement, although she made a total of 21 attempts. The Postmaster made a final determination at the appellant's 88-day evaluation that she would be terminated.

Two white male employees were also on probationary status at approximately the same time as the appellant. These individuals met the segmentation casing standard and were retained. One met the requirement after eight attempts, and the other met the requirement after 11 attempts.

The appellant filed a timely complaint with the EEOC alleging that she had been discriminated against on the basis of race and sex in connection with her termination. Following an investigation and hearing, the EEOC affirmed the final agency decision and adopted an Administrative Law Judge's recommended finding that the appellant had not been discriminated against in connection with her discharge. The appellant brought this suit seeking relief against several defendants on numerous causes of action, stating that two white males were given more training in case segmentation. The district court dismissed all of the claims except the Title VII claim, ² and found that the appellant's Title VII claim was unsuccessful because she was terminated for failure to meet the required standard for case segmentation.

The appellant then filed a motion for reconsideration and submitted her own affidavit and several affidavits from other postal workers supporting her argument that the standard for the case segmentation was applied differently to her because of her race and sex. Those affidavits stated that appellant's supervisor had planned to terminate her regardless of whether she successfully completed casing, that one of the two white males was having continuous problems since his completion of probation, and that two of the affiants had not been subject to any standard regarding segmentation during their probationary period with the Postal Service. The district court denied the motion for reconsideration.

On appeal, the appellant argues that the district court erred in granting summary judgment to the defendants because the evidence showed that the defendants discriminated against her in giving her less training in case segmentation than was given to the white male trainees. She also argues that the district court failed to consider the evidence she submitted in her motion for reconsideration.

The record does not support the appellant's argument that she received less training in case segmentation than the two white male trainees. The record shows that she received twice as much training for case segmentation than either of the two white males, but failed to achieve the goal necessary for permanent employment, and that both of the white males achieved the goal. The district court did not err in granting summary judgment to the defendant...