Clement SUMNER, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, Appellee
1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 4758, 899 F.2d 203, 53 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 39,807 (1990)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employer's termination of an employee violates Title VII as unlawful retaliation if the employer's proffered legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons are found to be pretextual and a retaliatory motive for the employee's protected EEO activity was a motivating factor in the adverse action.
Facts:
- Clement Sumner, a black man, began working for the U.S. Postal Service in January 1981.
- In April 1982, Sumner filed an EEO complaint alleging sex discrimination after the Postal Service refused to modify his work schedule for college classes, though it had done so for two female employees. The Postal Service then granted his request, and he withdrew the complaint.
- In June 1982, Sumner filed another EEO complaint alleging a recent suspension was in retaliation for his first complaint; the parties settled, and the suspension was reduced.
- In the summer of 1982, Sumner and three coworkers complained to his supervisor, Frank Montemarano, that preferred mail routes were being assigned on a racially discriminatory basis.
- After a period with no disciplinary issues under different supervisors, Montemarano again became Sumner's supervisor in October 1983 and issued two letters of warning to him that same month.
- In March 1984, Sumner filed a formal EEO complaint charging supervisor Ruben Blumen with racial discrimination after receiving two suspensions. The next month, he circulated a petition against Blumen signed by 79 coworkers.
- On May 2, 1984, Montemarano confronted Sumner, who was on 'limited duty' due to a back injury. Montemarano accused Sumner of committing a safety violation by sitting on a mail case, an accusation Sumner and three other employee witnesses denied.
- During the encounter, Sumner told Montemarano he was not his supervisor, said he was going to the bathroom, and walked away. Montemarano subsequently recommended Sumner be fired for the alleged safety violation and disrespect.
Procedural Posture:
- The U.S. Postal Service terminated Clement Sumner's employment in June 1984.
- Sumner unsuccessfully appealed his termination through the multi-step union grievance process.
- Sumner appealed the decision to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), where an Administrative Law Judge upheld the termination, finding insubordination but no safety violation.
- Sumner then petitioned the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) for review, and the Commission upheld the MSPB decision.
- Sumner filed suit pro se in U.S. District Court against the U.S. Postal Service, alleging unlawful retaliation and race discrimination under Title VII.
- Following a five-day bench trial, the district court dismissed Sumner's complaint, finding that the Postal Service's reasons for the termination were not pretextual.
- Sumner (Appellant) appealed the district court's final order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, with the U.S. Postal Service as the Appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the U.S. Postal Service's termination of an employee, allegedly for a safety violation and insubordination, constitute unlawful retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 when the employee had a history of filing discrimination complaints and the proffered reasons for termination are found to be pretextual?
Opinions:
Majority - Fletcher, Circuit Judge
Yes. The U.S. Postal Service's termination of Sumner constituted unlawful retaliation under Title VII because the stated reasons were pretextual and a retaliatory motive played a part in the decision. The court found that the confluence of circumstances demonstrated that the Postal Service's explanation was not credible. The alleged safety violation was found not to have occurred and, even if it had, was not a serious infraction that would warrant termination. The charge of insubordination was also weak, as Sumner's reaction was provoked by his supervisor and was far more measured than the conduct of other employees who received lesser discipline. The court emphasized that Sumner presented considerable evidence of disparate treatment, where coworkers who committed more serious infractions but had not filed EEO complaints were not terminated. Furthermore, the Postal Service improperly considered prior disciplinary actions that had been expunged from Sumner's record. This combination of pretextual justifications, disparate treatment, and a history of animus following Sumner's protected activities proved that the firing was retaliatory and thus violated Title VII.
Analysis:
This decision illustrates the critical role of pretext analysis in Title VII retaliation claims. It establishes that courts can find retaliation based on a 'confluence of circumstances,' even without a direct admission of retaliatory intent. The ruling underscores the importance of evidence showing disparate treatment, demonstrating that employees who engage in similar or worse conduct but have not filed EEO complaints receive more lenient punishment. This case serves as a precedent for carefully scrutinizing an employer's stated reasons for an adverse employment action when that action follows an employee's protected activity, making it harder for employers to use minor or fabricated incidents to mask an illegal retaliatory motive.
