White v. DeJoy
| Decision Date | 08 February 2021 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION NO. 19-00116-TFM-B |
| Parties | CAESAR WHITE, JR., Plaintiff, v. LOUIS DEJOY, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Alabama |
This action is before the Court on cross motions for summary judgment filed by the Plaintiff, Caesar White, Jr., and the Defendant, Louis DeJoy, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Docs. 53, 56). The motions, which are fully briefed, have been referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge for entry of a report and recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and S.D. Ala. GenLR 72(a)(2)(S). Upon consideration of all matters presented, the undersigned RECOMMENDS, for the reasons stated herein, that Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (Doc. 53) be DENIED, that Defendant's motion for summary judgment (Doc. 56) be GRANTED, and that this action be DISMISSED with prejudice.
Plaintiff Caesar White, Jr. ("White"), an employee of the United States Postal Service ("Postal Service"), initiated this action on March 12, 2019 by filing a complaint alleging retaliation, harassment, and employment discrimination. (Doc. 1). Construed liberally, White's complaint contains allegations of retaliation and harassment in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. ("Title VII"), and (arguably) the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. ("ADEA").1 (Id. at 1-2). White also alleges discriminatory disparate treatment based on his age, in violation of the ADEA. (Id. at 2). According to White's complaint, he filed an Occupational Safety and Health Administration ("OSHA") complaint relating to working conditions "[o]n or about August of 2016," and he later filed an Equal Employment Opportunity ("EEO") complaint for retaliation. (Id.). His EEO complaint was amended in October 2017 "to include age discrimination." (Id.). White asserts that he was subjected to numerous unjust write-ups and his work was unfairly removed from him in retaliation for filing OSHA and EEO complaints, and that younger workers were used to perform his work while other employees were allowed to perform their own work. (Id. at 1-2).
White was hired by the Postal Service in 2010 at the age of forty-seven.3 (Doc. 55-3 at 2). At all times relevant to this action, White was assigned as a career letter carrier at the Springhill Post Office in Mobile, Alabama. (Id.). As a letter carrier, White's work was divided into office duties consisting of casing and loading his mail prior to delivery, and street duties consisting of delivering and collecting mail. (Doc. 55-4 at 1-2).
Carriers' routes are designed to have eight hours of regular mail volume, and carriers are expected to deliver all mail for their routes within eight hours. (Doc. 37-4 at 2; Doc. 37-5 at 1; Doc. 55-4 at 3). Once the carrier is notified of the volume of mail for his route, he must notify management if he believes that he cannot complete the delivery within the expected eight hours.(Doc. 55-3 at 26; Doc. 55-6 at 4). The carrier notifies management by submitting a PS Form 3996, Carrier - Auxiliary Control form ("Form 3996"). (Doc. 55-3 at 26-29; Doc. 55-6 at 4-5). In completing the form, the carrier must provide the reason he cannot deliver the mail within eight hours and use his professional judgment to estimate the additional time or assistance required to complete the route. (Id.). An estimate is deemed "unprofessional" when it substantially varies from the actual volume of mail distributed to the route or from actual delivery time after the fact. (Doc. 37-4 at 2).
Upon submission of the Form 3996, management evaluates the propriety of the request, taking into account past performance, the facility's budget, overall mail volume that day, and the availability of other carriers to provide auxiliary assistance. (Doc. 55-4 at 3; Doc. 55-6 at 13). The decision to approve, deny, or modify the request for overtime or auxiliary assistance is within the sole discretion of management based on their professional expertise and the specific facts and circumstances of each request. (Doc. 55-3 at 21, 33; Doc. 55-4 at 3; Doc. 55-6 at 13).
At all times relevant to this action, White was a member of the National Association of Letter Carriers ("NALC") Union. (Doc. 37-4 at 2). The NALC and Postal Service have entered into a series of collectively bargained agreements ("National Agreement").(Id.). Pursuant to the National Agreement, carriers may volunteer for overtime opportunities through the quarterly overtime-desired list ("OTDL") on the days that they are available to work. (Doc. 37-4 at 2; Doc. 37-6 at 4-6). Management is responsible for ensuring that each available OTDL carrier receives similar opportunities to accumulate overtime hours during a quarter. (Doc. 37-4 at 2; Doc. 37-6 at 5). However, under the National Agreement, recourse to the overtime list is not necessary in the case of a letter carrier working on the employee's own route on one of the employee's regularly scheduled days. (Id.).
During the periods relevant to this lawsuit, White's first level supervisor at the Springhill Post Office was Customer Services Supervisor John Langham, and his second level supervisor was Customer Services Manager Oscar Naylor. (Doc. 34 at 9; Doc. 55-4 at 1; Doc. 55-5 at 1).4
Starting in April 2016 and continuing to at least May 2017, management counseled White, both orally and in writing, regarding alleged performance issues.5 The discipline issued to White duringthis period was administrative in nature and did not result in any loss of pay. (Doc. 55-3 at 56; Doc. 55-4 at 6). Pursuant to the National Agreement, employee discipline expires after two years from the date of issuance. (Doc. 55-4 at 6). White's personnel file does not contain any disciplinary records. (Id.).
On August 2, 2016, White anonymously filed OSHA Safety/Health Complaint No. 1119894. (Doc. 55-1 at 1; Doc. 61-1 at 2). He alleged inadequate water and comfort breaks and that employeeswere exposed to back injuries by being required to lift heavy tubs loaded with books. (Doc. 61-1 at 2). In response to White's OSHA complaint, an OSHA compliance officer performed an unannounced inspection of White's workplace on August 23, 2016. (Id.). No violations were substantiated; thus, no citations were issued as a result of the inspection. (Id.).
On August 30, 2016, White sought pre-complaint counseling from the Postal Service's EEO Office. (Doc. 55-1). He alleged that he suffered retaliation for filing OSHA Complaint No. 1119894. (Id. at 1). On September 16, 2016, Manager Naylor became aware of White's EEO activity after being contacted by an EEO Alternative Dispute Resolution Specialist. (Doc. 55-4 at 4).
On September 23, 2016, White filed OSHA Complaint No. 4-2100-16-064, alleging that he was harassed and followed along his mail route by Manager Naylor on or about September 15, 2016 in retaliation for filing the OSHA Safety/Health complaint on August 2, 2016. (Doc. 61-1 at 1-2). On April 5, 2017, the Department of Labor issued a written finding of no reasonable cause to believe that the Postal Service retaliated against White for filing the OSHA Safety/Health complaint on August 2, 2016. (Doc. 61-1).
On November 29, 2016, White filed a formal EEO Complaint alleging retaliation by Manager Naylor. (Doc. 55-2). Supervisor Langham became aware of White's EEO activity on January 13, 2017,when an EEO investigator contacted him about White's complaint. (Doc. 55-5 at 2).
As noted supra, White filed this action on March 12, 2019. (Doc. 1). Currently pending before the Court is White's motion for summary judgment (Doc. 53). The thirteen-page, handwritten document is rambling and difficult to decipher. It does not include a statement of all facts relied upon and the specific record citation supporting each fact, as required by S.D. Ala. CivLR 56.6 Moreover, White did not include any supporting brief or evidentiary materials. He instead appears to rely on discovery responses, some of which are not a part of the record before the Court.7 (See id.). Defendant filed a response in opposition to White's motion and supporting exhibits. (Docs. 61, 62).
Also pending before the Court are Defendant's motion for summary judgment and supporting materials (Docs. 55, 56). White filed a response and amended response in opposition to Defendant's motion. (Docs. 65, 66). In his amended response, White objects to some of the factual assertions contained in Defendant's motion on the ground that Defendant altered or "edited" some of the Time and Attendance Control System ("TACS") reports, and that Defendant seeks to rely on evidence, some of which was not provided to him during discovery. (Doc. 66 at 6, 9-13). He argues that the factual assertions should thus be stricken. (Id.). Defendant filed a reply to White's responses, along with supporting exhibits. (Docs. 68, 69). Given that the parties' motions have been fully briefed, they are now ripe for resolution.
Before turning to the merits of the motions, the undersigned finds that White's assertions regarding the TACS reports are wholly unsupported. Defendant has proffered sworn testimony that the TACS reports provide a line-by-line detail of an individual employee's workday, regular schedule, official assignment, pay location or duty station, and leave balances, but do not show which employees were available for overtime on any given day, which employees accepted or declined overtime on any route, or the needsof the service that necessitated approval or disapproval of specific overtime requests on any given route. (See Doc. 37-4). White has not come forth with any evidence to dispute Defendant's showing. Accordingly, White's request to strike various factual assertions due to alleged altered TACS reports is denied.
To continue reading
Request your trial