Mitchell v. Postmaster Gen.
| Decision Date | 24 October 2022 |
| Docket Number | 1:13-CV-00718-MAC-ZJH |
| Parties | CAROLYN S. MITCHELL, Plaintiff, v. POSTMASTER GENERAL, LOUIS DEJOY, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Texas |
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
This case is assigned to the Honorable Marcia A. Crone, United States District Judge, and has been referred to the undersigned for pretrial management. Pending before the court is Defendant Postmaster General, Louis DeJoy's[1] (“Postmaster”) Motion to Dismiss or Alternatively, Motion for Summary Judgment (“Motion” or “Motion for Summary Judgment”). Doc. No. 119. For the reasons stated below, the undersigned recommends granting the Postmaster's motion.
Mitchell an African-American female born in 1960, has worked for the United States Postal Service (“USPS”) since September 1980.[2] Doc. No. 182, Sapp v. Potter, No 1:07-CV-650, at *2 (E.D. Tex. July 26, 2012); see also Doc. No. 119 at 2, ¶¶ 1- 4. Mitchell, who previously identified as Carolyn Sapp, consistently worked for the USPS until August 2001, when she reported experiencing several overlapping mental health issues. Doc. No. 55, Sapp v. Porter, No 1:07-CV-650, at *2. Thereafter, Mitchell exhausted her leave for over one year, resulting in the USPS placing her on a Leave Without Pay (“LWOP”) status from December 2002 until her separation in May 2008 because of a Reduction-in-Force (“RIF”). Id. at 2-3. Mitchell did not work for the USPS between 2008 and 2011. In the summer of 2011, Mitchell applied to the USPS for a position as a Postal Support Employee (“PSE”) Clerk at eight different Texas locations. Doc. No. 97 at 2; Doc. No. 119 at 3-9. The instant lawsuit, and subsequent decade of litigation, arises out of the USPS's failure to hire Mitchell at seven different postal locations, as well as issues arising out of Mitchell's employment at the Euless, Texas location. See Doc. No. 97 at 2-8.
Because Mitchell is proceeding pro se, her pleadings are held to “less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers” and, as such, must be liberally construed. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972); Perez v. United States, 312 F.3d 191, 194-95 (5th Cir. 2002). Mitchell exhausted her administrative appeals before the Equal Employment Opportunity (“EEO”) Administrative Judges, as well as the Office of Federal Operations (“OFO”). During this litigation, Mitchell filed a total of three complaints (Doc. Nos. 1, 40, 48) followed by a series of miscellaneous complaints (Doc. Nos. 73-76), each with thousands of pages of attachments. E.g., Doc. Nos. 78-82. After the Postmaster moved to strike (Doc. No. 86) these miscellaneous complaints, on November 18, 2020, the undersigned held that it will construe Mitchell's Response to Motion to Strike (Doc. No. 97) as a Third Amended Complaint [hereafter “TAC” or “Complaint”]. Doc. No. 100 at 3.
The instant case arises out of the period after the USPS placed Mitchell on LWOP status, between 2002 and 2008. Doc. No. 97 at 2. In 2011, Mitchell applied for a Postal Support Employee (“PSE”) Clerk position at eight different the USPS locations. See Ex. A, Doc. No. 1191. After the USPS failed to hire Mitchell at seven of those locations, the Euless location finally hired Mitchell. Doc. No. 119 at 9. Mitchell first alleges race, sex, age, and disability discrimination for the USPS's failure to hire her at seven of those locations. Moreover, during her employment at the Euless location, Mitchell alleges the USPS retaliated against her, and discriminated against her on the basis of race, sex, age, and disability when her employer: failed to convert her to career status pursuant to an Arbitration Settlement; placed her in involuntary LWOP status between 2002 and 2008; “den[ied] full retirement annuity from 1980 t[o] present”; failed to provide “correct pay and benefits”; and carried out a host of miscellaneous actions against her, such as removing forms from her personnel file, placing her on a contractually-mandated five-day break, paying her late, suspending her for fourteen days, and more. See Doc. No. 97 at 2-9.
For greater ease and specificity as to the facts underlying each cause of action, the undersigned will address Mitchell's allegations according to their parallel administrative EEO proceedings, taking each in turn.
On September 1, 2011, Mitchell initiated the EEO process for complaint #114-11. Ex. A, Att. 12, Doc. No. 119-1. This EEO complaint, and the following allegations before this court, stem from the USPS's failure to hire Mitchell at seven different locations for the position as a Postal Support Employee (“PSE”) Clerk. Id. Specifically, Mitchell complains that hiring officers at seven of the locations failed to hire her because they discriminated against her due to her race, sex, age, and disability, and retaliated against her for filing a previous EEO complaint. Each cause of action therefore arises under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”).
On June 23, 2011, Mitchell applied for a PSE position with the Weatherford Post Office. Ex. A, Att. 1, Doc. No. 119-1. Donna Huffstuttler, a white woman, who was fifty-years-old at the time, was the hiring official at this location. Ex. A, Att. 2, Doc. No. 119-1 at 2. In her corresponding EEO Investigative Affidavit, Huffstuttler affirmed she did not know Mitchell suffered from any “mental conditions or impairments,” nor did she know Mitchell engaged in prior EEO activity. Id. at 2-3.
Huffstuttler affirmed she had one position to fill at this location and hired Phillip Hill: a black male “in his late 20s or middle 30s,” and a compensable veteran. Id. at 3. Huffstuttler stated Mitchell's “race, sex, [and] age” did not factor into her hiring consideration - only that Hill was “a compensable veteran who was higher listed on the register.” Id.
On July 28, 2011, Mitchell applied for a PSE position with the Fort Worth Post Office. Ex. A, Att. 1, Doc. No. 119-1. Kenneth Ruleas, a Hispanic male, who was about fifty-years-old at the time, was the hiring official at this location. Ex. A, Att. 3, Doc. No. 119-1 at 2. In his corresponding EEO Investigative Affidavit, Ruleas affirmed he did not know Mitchell suffered from any “mental conditions or impairments,” nor did he know Mitchell engaged in prior EEO activity. Id. at 2-3.
Ruleas affirmed he selected Anthony Acosta for the position because “Mr. Acosta has Veteran preference as a compensable veteran and had the highest score on the hiring list.” Id. at 3. Ruleas stated Mitchell's “race, sex, [and] age” did not factor into his hiring consideration - he chose Acosta “because a veteran had preference in the hiring process.” Id.
On June 23, 2011, Mitchell applied for a PSE position with the Burleson Post Office. Ex. A, Att. 1, Doc. No. 119-1. Michelle Fiegel, a white woman who was about forty-years-old, was the hiring official at this location. Ex. A, Att. 4, Doc. No. 119-1 at 2. In her corresponding EEO Investigative Affidavit, Fiegel affirmed she did not know Mitchell suffered from any “mental conditions or impairments,” nor did she know Mitchell engaged in prior EEO activity. Id. at 2-3.
Fiegel stated she had one position to be filled at the time and had between fourteen and seventeen applicants for the PSE position. Id. at 3. After narrowing the pool of applicants to four or five people, Fiegel affirmed that “[s]everal of the applicants were black and several were white and at least one was Hispanic . . . there were about an equal number of males and females.” Id. She stated she did not know the ages of any of the applicants.
Ultimately, Fiegel hired Dario Ruvarac, a white male in his forties, after originally selecting two black male veterans that were hired in other locations. Id. at 3, 5. Thus, Fiegel stated she hired Dario Ruvarac because he was “the best applicant,” id. at 3, and “was the next eligible applicant on the hiring list who had responded to the District's request.” Id. at 5. Mitchell, however, was placed “in the bottom half of the applicants on the register.” Id. at 3. Fiegel stated Mitchell's “race, sex, [and] age” did not factor into her hiring consideration. Id. at 3-4.
On July 6, 2011, Mitchell applied for a PSE position with the Village Mills Post Office. Ex. A, Att. 1, Doc. No. 119-1. Elizabeth Epperson, a white woman who was about sixty-one-years-old at the time, was the hiring official at this location. Ex. A, Att. 5, Doc. No. 119-1 at 2. In her corresponding EEO Investigative Affidavit, Epperson affirmed she did not know Mitchell suffered from any “mental conditions or impairments.” Id. at 2.
During this interview process, Epperson questioned Mitchell about how she would handle an EEO complaint “because [Mitchell] would have to be trained on EEO for [Epperson's] office and [Epperson] needed to know how much training she needed.” Id. at 3. Epperson stated that and Epperson affirmed that Mitchell's prior EEO activity was not a factor of consideration for failing to hire her. Id.
Epperson had to fill one position at this location, and ultimately hired Anna Self, a white woman who was sixty-years-old at the time, because ...
To continue reading
Request your trial