Need pdf viewer for iPad?
Visit iTunes for:
iAnnotate PDF

Garland's Digest
on employment discrimination law
online since 1997
 

 

Disclaimer: The case on which this summary is based may no longer be current law. Also, if the case was decided on summary judgment, the court recited the "facts" in the light most favorable to the non-movant, which may not be the true facts.

-------------------------

Ray v. Henderson, 217 F.3d 1234 (9th Cir. July 7, 2000)

Keywords: Title VII (retaliation, adverse employment action)

Introduction: William Ray sued the United States Postal Service under Title VII for retaliation. The district court granted summary judgment on behalf of the Postal Service. The Ninth Circuit reverses and remands.

Facts: Ray was a rural postal carrier in Willits, California. Beginning in an "Employee Involvement Meeting" on March 30, 1994, Ray complained to the postmaster, Dan Carey, about the treatment of women at the Willits Post Office.

A week later, Ray and two co-workers wrote a letter to Carey's supervisor complaining of harassment of women. This prompted a meeting in which Carey expressed his displeasure with the letter and he told Ray that he may change his approach to management. According to Carey, his current approach was "self-management" -- where the employees were left alone.

A short time later, Carey canceled the "Employee Involvement Meetings." He also required all rural carriers to be at work at 7:00 A.M. Previously, rural carriers would arrive between 6:00 A.M. and 7:00 A.M. By changing the time, rural carriers had to sort their mail faster and had less time to perform administrative tasks before going out to deliver the mail on their routes.

Also, Ray was twice charged with misconduct and cleared both times.

A series of pranks were also played on Ray.

On October 13, 1995, Ray filed a request for counseling with the EEOC. On November 7, 1995, Ray took stress leave from work.

After Carey received Ray's EEO complaint, Carey instituted "lockdown" procedures at the post office because Ray's complaint said that four people had told him that Carey should be killed.

Lockdown requires the loading dock doors to be locked at all times and this made it more difficult for the employees to go in and out of the building.

The Postal Inspector was called in to determine whether Ray's EEO complaint was a death threat -- and he determined that it was not.

Also, prior to the EEO complaint, Carey had allowed Ray to arrive at 6:30 A.M. so that he could finish work early to take care of his wife who was extremely ill.

After the EEO complaint, and after Ray returned to work, Carey changed Ray's starting time back to 7:00 A.M.

Ray wrote additional EEO complaint letters on December 13, 1995, January 15 and 21, 1996, and April 1, 1996.

In March of 1996, Ray's postal route was reduced by 90 boxes, causing him to lose approximately $3,000 from his annual salary. Although all the postal carriers suffered cuts in their routes, Ray's route was cut the most.

Law:

1. The main issue is whether Ray has suffered any adverse employment actions. The Ninth Circuit reviews the case law in this area and finds that the Circuits are divided as follows:
   1. Those Circuits applying a broad definition are:  First, Seventh, Ninth, Tenth, Eleventh and D.C. Circuits;
   2. Those Circuits applying an intermediate definition are: Second and Third Circuits; and
   3. Those Circuits applying a restrictive definition are: Fifth and Eighth Circuits.
2. The definition applied by the Ninth Circuit is: "an adverse employment action is adverse treatment that is reasonably likely to deter employees from engaging in protected activity."
3. This definition is consistent with the EEOC's definition. See, EEOC Compliance Manual Section 8, "Retaliation," P 8008 (1998).
4. The Court finds that the adverse actions (set forth in the "Facts" section) qualify as adverse employment actions because they decreased Ray's pay, decreased the amount of time he had to perform his job, and decreased his ability to influence workplace policy.
5. The Court goes on to find sufficient evidence of a causal link (for purposes of establishing a prima facie case) and finds sufficient evidence of pretext with respect to the Postal Service's proffered non-retaliatory reasons for each action.
6. Finally, the Court joins the Second, Seventh and Tenth Circuits in holding that an employee can sue for a hostile work environment under the anti-retaliation provisions of Title VII.
7. In this case, after Ray began complaining of the treatment of females, he was subjected to verbal abuse for 1.5 years. The Court finds sufficient evidence of a hostile work environment for purposes of surviving summary judgment.
8. Therefore, the Ninth Circuit reverses and remands.
9. Click here to see actual case.