Stevenson v. Brennan
| Decision Date | 12 March 2018 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 06-15182 |
| Parties | JAMES STEVENSON, Plaintiff, v. MEGAN J. BRENNAN, Postmaster General of the United States, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan |
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND REFERRING THE MATTER TO FACILITATIVE MEDIATION
This is a civil rights action brought by Plaintiff James Stevenson against Megan J. Brennan, Postmaster General of the United States, in her official capacity as chief executive officer of the United States Postal Service ("USPS" or "Defendant"). Plaintiff alleges that Defendant has taken a variety of adverse employment actions against him in violation of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., over the years: some for discriminatory reasons, on the basis of his gender; and others for retaliatory reasons, owing to his frequent participation in union grievances, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") proceedings, and other legal and administrative actions concerning the USPS.
Before the court is Defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Through that Motion, Defendant seeks summary judgment as to a set of specific, discrete actions by Defendant that Plaintiff has alleged as bases for his discrimination and retaliation claims. Defendant also seeks summary judgment on the remedial issue of front pay. For the reasons discussed below, the Court will grant in part Defendant's Motion to the extent that it seeks summary judgment on the specified actions, and will deny in part Defendant's Motion to the extent that it seeks summary judgment on the issue of front pay. The Court will also refer the matter to facilitative mediation under E.D. Mich. L.R. 16.4, which is to be conducted pursuant to the specific terms set forth in Section III.D of this Opinion and Order.
Plaintiff has alleged numerous potential factual bases for his discrimination and retaliation claims. The scope of Defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment does not include all of them, and is instead cabined to several discrete alleged actions by Defendant that Plaintiff asserts as factual predicates for one or both of his claims. The following factual summary sets forth only those facts that are relevant to Defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.
Plaintiff began working for Defendant in 1986 as a letter carrier assigned to the USPS station in Detroit's Brightmoor neighborhood. In either 1997 or 1998,Plaintiff began work as a window distribution clerk (officially a "Sales and Service Associate") with the job designation of "part-time regular" ("PTR"). (2006 Stevenson Dep. 14:6-15.)
Plaintiff has a robust history of labor union participation, and held several different union positions during the relevant time period. Starting in or around 1992, he served as a union steward for the National Association of Letter Carriers for approximately a year. (2006 Stevenson Dep. 16:8-18.) Plaintiff took his first union steward position with the American Postal Workers Union ("APWU") in 2003, was elected to the position of APWU's Clerk Craft Director in 2009, and was appointed to the position of National Business Agent with APWU in 2014.
Both in connection with his union positions and of his own accord, Plaintiff has filed numerous Equal Employment Opportunity ("EEO") complaints over the years, including 13 EEO complaints on his own behalf between 2004 and 2013. He also represented at least six other union members in EEO proceedings beginning in 2007.
Between February 2007 and February 2008, Plaintiff participated in a grievance proceeding between APWU and Defendant, which arose from allegations that Defendant deployed letter-carrier employees to perform work that clerical employees (including Plaintiff) were entitled to perform under the governingnational collective bargaining agreement. That proceeding resulted in a $90,000 arbitration award against Defendant. Plaintiff's participation in these proceedings included testifying at the arbitration hearing on December 12, 2007. (Pl.'s Resp. at 4, Pg ID 2269; Exs. 29-30.)
In 2010, Plaintiff filed a charge against Defendant with the National Labor Relations Board ("NLRB"), alleging that Defendant had consistently refused or failed to turn requested documents over to Plaintiff (in his capacity as an APWU official), which "severely prejudiced the union in the identifying, processing, and adjudication of grievances and/or employee representation." This proceeding resulted in the entry of a Consent Order by the Sixth Circuit in 2012, which required Defendant to (among other things) refrain from failing to answer, ignoring, delaying responses to, or otherwise acting in bad faith concerning information requests by labor organizations. ( The Consent Order also required Defendant to maintain certain record-keeping practices as to information requests, to provide managerial employees with instructions and training regarding the disclosure of requested information, and to engage in other specified practices to ensure the disclosure of information to which labor organizations would be entitled under the National Labor Relations Act. (See id. at 2-7, Pg ID 2944-49.)
Between 201.0 and 2012, Plaintiff was involved in a class action EEO proceeding based on allegations that Defendant violated a collective bargaining agreement by maintaining certain employment practices. That action resulted in a substantial award for the affected employees. (See Pl.'s Resp. at 3-4, Pg ID 2268-69; Exs. 24-25.)
In 2013, Plaintiff participated in a grievance proceeding based on allegations that between 2009 and 2011, Defendant had assigned part-time employees to work beyond permissible hourly limits in lieu of full-time clerks that had been laid off. This proceeding resulted in an award of approximately $500,000 distributed among 882 employees.
In an EEO complaint filed on December 3, 2004, Plaintiff alleged that he received a seven-day suspension on September 25, 2004 for being out of uniform. Plaintiff testified in a 2015 deposition that because he did not work more than 30 hours per week, he was not required under his contract to wear a uniform, and in fact had been routinely wearing the blue jeans that he was suspended for wearing for ten years. (2015 Stevenson Dep. 21:4-22:5.) Plaintiff also testified that several similarly situated female employees were not themselves disciplined for wearing jeans orneglecting to wear a uniform. (2015 Stevenson Dep. 18:10-20:23.)
The suspension was rescinded in full on November 17, 2004, approximately two weeks before Plaintiff filed the EEO complaint.
In an EEO Investigative Affidavit dated May 6, 2009, Detroit Postmaster Lloyd Wesley averred that in late 2008, owing to "a reduction [in] mail volume, revenue and retail activity," the USPS undertook a (Def.'s Mot. Ex. 4, EEO Affidavit of Lloyd Wesley at ¶ 3.) In a letter dated September 25, 2008, Wesley advised APWU President Dwight Boudreaux of the forthcoming "repositioning of clerks in the 4821 Stations and Branches," and wrote that (Def.'s Mot. Ex. 5, 09/25/08 Letter.) Wesley then summarized the administrative steps that had been taken to arrive at this determination, and requested that Boudreaux meet with the "482 Complement Committee" on October 3, 2008 "to further discuss the processes to be taken." (Id.)
On or about November 26, 2008, Plaintiff received a letter from Wesley indicating that Plaintiff was to be excessed2 from his section, due to "reduction in mail volume and staffing realignment." Wesley's letter stated that Plaintiff would become an "unassigned regular" and would be "involuntarily reassigned no sooner than February 1, 2009." (Id.)
To continue reading
Request your trial