United States District Court, D. Connecticut
RULING ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT
JANET
BOND ARTERTON U.S.D.J.
Plaintiffs
Mary Hatch and Keith Henderson allege against Defendant Megan
J. Brennan, the Postmaster General, that Defendant
discriminated against Plaintiffs based upon their age in
violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act
("ADEA"), 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq.
(Counts One and Two), as well as on the basis of perceived
disability in violation of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C.
§ 701 et seq. (Counts Three and Four), and that
Defendant retaliated against Plaintiffs in violation of Title
VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2OOOe (Counts Five and
Six).[1] Defendant now moves [Doc. # 55] for
summary judgment on all claims. Oral argument was held April
20, 2018. For the following reasons, Defendant's Motion
is granted.
I.
Background
Plaintiffs
Mary Hatch and Keith Henderson worked as human resources
specialists for the United States Postal Service
("USPS") in the Connecticut Valley District-Hatch
beginning in 1985 and Henderson in 1979. (Def.'s Loc. R.
56(a) 1 Stmt. % 1 ("Def.'s LR 56
Stmt"); PL's Loc. R. 56(a)2 Stmt. ¶ l
("PL's LR 56 Stmt").)[2] During the relevant time
period, Plaintiffs were employed in the "Learning
Development and Diversity" ("LD&D") Unit.
(LR 56 Stmt. 5 2.) Beginning January 2014, through their
respective retirements, Plaintiffs' supervisor in the
LD&D Unit was Catherine Litke. (Id. ¶ 3.)
A.
Working Under Litke
Hatch
testified that Litke was rude, insulting, and berating, and
spoke "down" to her and numerous other employees.
(Hatch Tr. at 59:24-60:17.) Henderson experienced Litke
condescendingly talking to him as if he were a "two-year
old" or "a young child" on a consistent basis.
(Henderson Tr. at 56:1-57:10.) Both Plaintiffs wrote on their
respective EEO Investigative Affidavits[3] that Litke spoke
to them in "demeaning, insulting, berating manner in
front of colleagues and others." (See, e.g.,
Ex. C (Hatch EEO Aff.) to Def.'s Mot. for Summ. J. [Doc.
# 55-3] at 76; Ex D (Henderson EEO Aff.) to id.
[Doc. # 55-4] at 105.)
Plaintiffs
further stated that Litke routinely imposed completely
unreasonable deadlines for the projects she assigned to
Plaintiffs. (Hatch Tr. at 32:24-33:2; Henderson Tr. at 29-33,
136.) Henderson found that Litke would demand that he be able
to deliver more work than was possible in the given time
frame, and that when he advised her that her time frame
expectations were unrealistic, she informed him she did not
like his attitude and it would have to change, and he would
have to work harder. (Henderson Tr. at 28:12-29:4.)
Plaintiffs both testified that, in contrast, Litke took
projects away from younger employees when they complained of
being overwhelmed. (Hatch Tr. at 115:8-16; Henderson Tr. at
145:1-4.)
Hatch
claims that Litke threatened her with discipline in nearly
every conversation (Hatch Tr. at 63:15-21), and that
"the threat was hanging over [her] head constantly"
(id. at 65:7-8). Similarly, Henderson was constantly
threatened with disciplinary action by Litke when he
complained to her about his workload. (Henderson Tr. at 65.)
Moreover, although denied by Litke, Plaintiffs assert that
Litke would frequently ask them to stay beyond their
scheduled departure time, without the benefit of
compensation. (Hatch Tr. at 67:14-22; Henderson Tr. at
125:23-126:11, 1281-129:8; Litke Tr. at
88:13-25.)[4]
After
coming under Litke's supervision, Plaintiff Hatch
experienced severe headaches, anxiety, depression, inability
to concentrate, sleeplessness, exhaustion, nightmares, and
neck pain. (LR 56 Stmt. ¶ 9.) Henderson testified that
as a result of the treatment he received from Litke and other
managers, he developed a diagnosed general anxiety disorder.
(Henderson Tr. at 38:1-11.) He also testified that he
suffered from "extreme stress." (Id. at
42:6-12.)
B.
Hatch's Form 3971 and Letter of Warning
Hatch
submitted to Litke a Request for Absence (a "Form
3971") for 1.5 hours of leave time, dated January 8,
2015, on which she wrote under "remarks[:]"
"STRESS/ HARASSMENT/HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT FOR THE
PAST YEAR." (Ex. 7 (Form 3971) to PL's Opp'n.)
Litke gave the Form 3971 to her manager, Ms. Theresa Bruso,
but neither Litke nor Bruso took any substantive, affirmative
steps regarding Hatch's claim of harassment and hostile
work environment. (Litke Tr. at 16:4-16; Hatch Tr. at
75:11-17.)
On
January 20, 2015, Litke issued a Letter of Warning to Hatch
regarding Hatch's failure to provide a certain report by
the requested deadline. (See Ex. 15 (Hatch Warning
Letter) to PL's Opp'n [Doc. # 59-6]; Ex. E to
Def.'s Mot. for Summ. J.) Hatch, who in the previous
thirty years of employment had a completely exemplary and
unblemished disciplinary record, found this action deeply
insulting and punitive. (See Hatch Tr. at 90:18-23.)
On
January 30, 2015, Hatch responded to the Letter of Warning
with a letter to Litke, addressed "To whom it may
concern," comprehensively explaining why the project had
not been completed as requested. (See Ex. 8 (Hatch
Response Letter) to PL's Opp'n.) Hatch ended her
letter, "[t]he fact of the matter is we are drowning in
a sea of constant chaos, bullying, harassment, ineffective
and unknowledgeable micromanagement and demeaning monologues
that have eroded our reputation, confidence, and ability to
maintain the level of excellent service we have always
provided...." (Hatch Response Letter at 3.)
In the
meantime, both Plaintiffs left work on sick leave, neither of
whom would ever return to work, and instead retired.
Hatch's last day of work was January 20, 2015. (Ex. C
(Hatch EEO Aff.) to Def.'s Mot. for Summ. J. [Doc. #
55-3] at 110.) Similarly, Henderson was out on sick leave
beginning January 22, 2015 "due to the hostile work
environment [he] was subject to." (Ex D (Henderson EEO
Aff.) to Def.'s Mot. for Summ. J [Doc. # 55-4] at 130.)
C.
The Joint Complaint
While
out on sick leave, Plaintiffs authored a joint letter of
complaint (the "Joint Complaint") dated February
20, 2015, notifying the Postal Service's management about
the working conditions and seeking intervention because
Plaintiffs "couldn't live and survive in that kind
of environment and do the amount of work" required of
them. (Hatch Tr. at 69:2-21; Ex. 6 (the Joint Complaint) to
PL's Opp'n.) The Joint Complaint listed twenty-nine
examples of the treatment Plaintiffs characterized as
"daily bullying, harassment, humiliation, intimidation
and demeaning aggression the manager displayed against"
them. (Joint Complaint at 4364.) However, it makes no mention
of any disability or impairment, nor does it refer to or
imply differential treatment on the basis of age, disability,
or prior EEO activity. (Def.'s LR 56 Stmt. ¶¶
6-8.) Moreover, the Joint Complaint states that it would be
"fair to say that [Plaintiffs were] not the only victims
of [Litke's] wrath, but that everyone in the department,
and well beyond, have suffered from her irrational and
hostile behavior as well." (Id.)
Bruso
received the Joint Complaint from Jim Bachteler, the National
Association of Postal Supervisors ("NAPS") advocate
acting on behalf of Plaintiffs. (Bruso Tr. at 1-12; Ex. 9
(Bachteler Email) to PL's Opp'n at 5308.)
Bachteler's email noted that he was "filing a
Hostile Workplace compliant [sic] against the Manager of
LD&D Cathy Litke." (Bachteler Email at 5308.)
Finding the Joint Complaint to be serious, Bruso brought it
to the attention of Andrew Cullen, who was Bruso's
manager of labor, in the middle of March, 2015. (Bruso Tr. at
42:11-16; Cullen Tr. at 51:19-20.)[5]
Bruso
testified that she decided to remove herself from direct
involvement because Litke reported directly to her, and that
she therefore asked Cullen to take the lead on investigating
the Complaint. (Bruso Tr. at 42:15-20.) Cullen proceeded with
"an informal investigation to make the determination if
it was necessary "to proceed with a more formal
investigation." (Cullen Tr. at 58:10-12.)[6]
In
conducting his informal investigation, Cullen believed it was
more beneficial not to let Bruso and Litke know they were
being examined, as they would, presumably, be more apt to
speak candidly.[7] (Id. at 59:5-10, 78:6-10.)
Consequently, Cullen spoke to Bruso and Litke on
"unrelated issues" in order to determine whether
the assertions raised by Hatch and Henderson in the Joint
Complaint warranted closer scrutiny. (Id. at
59:11-60:6.) He did ask Litke about working with Plaintiffs,
and was informed that Hatch could be difficult to work with
and Henderson essentially followed what Hatch did.
(Id. at 78:14-79:5.) Cullen testified that in his
view, "it wasn't necessarily whether [Litke's
statements] were true or not" but rather "how
[Litke] said it," i.e., he wanted to see if Litke spoke
in a condescending manner or in a way that Cullen felt
belittled Plaintiffs. (Id. at 79:8-12.) He further
stated: "You know, if I get the eyes rolling or if I get
the disgusted tone in someone, that's what I was looking
for when I met with [Litke], to see if she had that about
[Plaintiffs]. She didn't act that way," from which
he concluded "that she didn't have a level of
disdain for them." (Id. at 79:17-24.) He
clarified this fact alone did not mean harassment had not
occurred but was one of the factors he took into
consideration. (Id. at 79:25-80:4.)
He also
spoke with Walkden and Zaskey, two other Human Resource
Specialists within the LD8cD Unit who reported to Litke.
(Id. at 63:15-66:21.) However, over the course of
his three to four week informal investigation, Cullen never
spoke to either Hatch or Henderson because he did not think
it was necessary. (Id. at 68:4-9, 80:15-20.) Cullen
testified that he had not been aware of Hatch's 3971 Form
during his investigation. (Id. at 108:2-3.)
Cullen
ultimately determined that harassment never occurred between
Litke and Hatch and Henderson in the workplace. (Id.
at 66:22-25.) He considered the circumstances as a whole
based on his investigation, noting that Hatch was passed over
for the management job Litke received, the outgoing manager
was very well-liked and had a different personality and
management style, Henderson had had attendance issues, and
Plaintiffs' complaints were not made contemporaneously
with the underlying events. (Cullen Tr. at 69:1-73:17.) He
also concluded that there could "possibly" be some
resentment on the part of Plaintiffs toward Litke.
(Id. at 76:1-10.)
Plaintiffs
never received any response to their Joint Complaint, and
each testified that they felt forced to retire as a result of
this lack of response. (Hatch Tr. at 73:13-24; Henderson Tr.
at 80:23-81:25.) Bruso opined that only when an investigation
of harassment/hostile work environment becomes formal, which
it did not here, does the Complainant need to be notified of
the results. (Bruso Tr. at 48:21-49:6.)
D.
Communications While Plaintiffs Were on FMLA Leave
Hatch
received a letter dated February 27, 2015 from Litke advising
her of a scheduled pre- disciplinary interview to discuss her
"continued absence since February 10, 2015" and
notifying her that her "absence since that date ha[d]
been designated as AWOL." (Ex. 19 (Pre-Disciplinary
Interview Letter) to PL's Opp'n [Doc. # 59-6].) The
letter further indicated that discipline, including potential
removal from the Postal Service, was being considered.
(Id.) Hatch emailed Litke on March 1, notifying
Litke she had faxed and sent hard copies of the latest FMLA
paperwork covering the period of January 21 through March 9,
2015 to Shared Services. (Ex. 20 (Hatch-Litke FMLA Emails) to
PL's Opp'n [Doc. #59-6].) Litke responded that
Hatch's FMLA was approved only through February 9, 2015,
and that she had previously sent a letter to Hatch
instructing her to submit documentation, which she failed to
provide, resulting in her continued absence since February
10, 2015 being designated as AWOL. (Id.) Hatch felt
these letters were a way for Litke to harass her. (Hatch Tr.
at 129:12-21.)
Subsequently,
Litke issued Plaintiff Henderson a Letter of Warning dated
May 22, 2015, for "failure to be in regular
attendance."[8] (See Ex. F to Def.'s Mot. for
Summ. J; Ex. 13 to PL's Opp'n.) It stated that
Henderson had been absent from position since April 17, 2015
on sick leave and that his record ". .. reveals a lack
of dependability in maintaining [his] work schedule."
(Id.) Although Henderson was out of work in
accordance with his physician's orders, Litke believed
his time was no longer FMLA protected, which pursuant to
Postal Service Policy, is a violation of the Employee and
Labor Relations Manual ("ELM"). (Litke Tr. at
110:6-113:25.) Henderson appealed the decision, but his
appeal was denied and the Letter of Warning remained on his
record. (Ex. 16 (Henderson Appeal) to PL's Opp'n; Ex.
17 to id.)[9]
On June
25, 2015 Cullen sent a letter to Henderson requesting certain
medication information from his treating physician in
response to Henderson's request for accommodation. (Ex.
14 (Reasonable Accommodation Letter) to PL's Opp'n.)
After Henderson supplied this documentation he attended one
District Reasonable Accommodation Committee
("DRAC") meeting on August 2015.[10] (Henderson
Tr. at 17:7-12, 20:9-11.) He testified that at that meeting
Cullen, also the head of the DRAC, asked what the Postal
Service could do to get him back to work, to which Henderson
responded that he could not make that determination until he
found out the results of his hostile workplace complaint.
(Id. at 17:22-18:4.) He asserts that Cullen stated
he had not been aware Henderson filed a complaint, but had
thought Henderson was just backing up Hatch. (Id. at
18:5-9.) He then promised to get back to Henderson regarding
that complaint. (Id. at 18:11-13.) The United States
Postal Service never followed up with regard to a reasonable
accommodation nor did Henderson ever hear from Cullen
regarding the Joint Complaint. (Id. at 19:23-20:8.)
Hatch
officially retired April 30, 2015[11] although she had planned
on working until June 2018. (Ex. C (Hatch EEO Aff.) to
Def.'s Mot. for Summ. J. [Doc. # 55-3] at 110.) Henderson
remained out of work until he retired on May 31, 2016.
(Henderson Tr. at 94:21-23). Henderson testified he would not
have retired but he ran out of sick leave and
"couldn't return to an environment that [he] felt
was hostile and detrimental to [his] physical and mental
health." (Henderson Tr. at 81:1-3.)
E.
Facts Related to Plaintiffs' Age and ...