Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-2_04-cv-00207/USCOURTS-ared-2_04-cv-00207-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

-1-

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

EASTERN DIVISION

JOSEPH L. PERRY PLAINTIFF

vs. CASE NO. 2:04CV207GH

UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, ET AL. DEFENDANTS

ORDER

Plaintiff filed this action alleging that he was discriminated on the bases of his race,

color, sex, age and in retaliation for filing previous charges of discrimination when he was

denied employment with the United States Postal Service (“USPS”). The Court, on

August 25, 2005, granted the motions of the defendant unions to dismiss the claims

based on the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), Title VII, and 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983. The Court granted plaintiff leave to amend his complaint to state a claim against

the unions, particularly with regard to the conspiracy allegations under 42 U.S.C. § 1985.

Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on September 16, 2005, and defendants have filed

motions to dismiss.

The National Rural Letter Carriers’ Association, the American Postal Workers, and

the National Association of Letter Carriers (“the unions”) have filed motions to dismiss.

USPS has filed a motion for partial dismissal. In essence, the unions and USPS assert

that plaintiff’s amended complaint should be dismissed as untimely, and that plaintiff has

failed to allege a conspiracy claim against the defendants. Plaintiff has not responded to

the motions to dismiss. 

Plaintiff was directed to file an amended complaint within twenty days of the August

25th Order. Plaintiff filed his amended complaint on September 16, 2005, or two days past

the twenty day deadline. Although the complaint was technically two days late, the Court

Case 2:04-cv-00207-GH Document 77 Filed 01/18/06 Page 1 of 4
-2-

is not of the opinion that it should be dismissed for this minor technicality. The Court will,

instead, address the merits of the arguments defendants raise.

In order to state a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3), plaintiff must allege

“(1) a conspiracy, (2) for the purpose of depriving another of the ‘equal protection of the

laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws;’ (3) an act in furtherance of the

conspiracy; and (4) an injury to a person or property, or the deprivation of a legal right. 

A claim under this part of the section also requires proof of a class-based animus.”

Federer v. Gephardt, 363 F.3d 754 (2004), 757 -758 (8th Cir. 2004)(citations omitted).

Moreover, the plaintiff must allege with particularity and specifically demonstrate with

material facts that the defendants reached an agreement. [H]e can satisfy this burden by

‘point[ing] to at least some facts which would suggest that appellees 'reached an

understanding' to violate [his] rights.’”City of Omaha Employees Betterment Ass'n v. City

of Omaha, 883 F.2d 650, 652 (8th Cir. 1989)(citations omitted)

The amended complaint contains the following allegations:

19. That the National Rural Letter Carriers Association, American

Postal Workers Union and National Association for Letter Carriers conspired

with the United States Postal Service in their collective bargaining to violate

Title VII of the United States Code which provides for collective bargaining

to be non-discriminatory and which requires the number of new hires to be

diverse and that said conspiracy was devised in order to make agreements

among Defendant Postal Unions and the United States Postal Service in

order to allow employees to be hired on a temporary casual and/or

transitional basis without taking the Postal Examination. Then, the Union

representatives conspired with the Postmasters for the United States Postal

Service to allow those transitional casual and temporary employees to take

the Postal Examination non-competitively in order to be hired on a

permanent basis and, in turn, employees were hired who were less qualified

for the positions and said hires were conducted in a discriminatory fashion.

That said conspiracy is in violation of 42 U.S.C.A. § § 1985 and 1986. . . . 

21. That employees of the United States Postal Service and

representatives of the Defendant Postal Unions, National Rural Letter

Carriers Association, American Postal Workers Union and National

Association for Letter Carriers, conspired to interfere with the Plaintiff’s mail

in order to retaliate against him for filing Complaints against the United

States Postal Service in regard to his discrimination claims.

22. That employees of the United States Postal Service and

Case 2:04-cv-00207-GH Document 77 Filed 01/18/06 Page 2 of 4
-3-

representatives of the National Rural Letter Carriers Association, American

Postal Workers Union and National Association for Letter Carriers conspired

against the Plaintiff by failing to deliver his mail even when they knew where

the Plaintiff resided and where his mail box was located. . . . 

26. That the United States Postal Service and representatives of

national Rural Letter Carriers’ Association, American Postal Workers’ Union

and National Association for Letter Carriers failed to timely mail the Plaintiff

his call in notices thereby resulting in the Plaintiff not been [sic] given

enough notice to call in for his interviews. Said acts were acts of conspiracy

in violation of 42 U.S.C. A. [§ 1985] The United States Postal Service and

representatives of the National Letter Carriers Association, American Postal

Workers Union and National Association for Letter Carriers failed to

postmark notices of interviews that were mailed to the Plaintiff in order to

prevent the Plaintiff from determining the date on which the same was

mailed and that said notices were received by the Plaintiff on either the day

of the interview or after the date for responding for an interview in order to

prevent the Plaintiff from being hired with the United State Postal Service.

Said acts were in violation of 42 U.S.C.A. § § 1981, 1983, 1985 and 1986.

Here, plaintiff is attempting to do indirectly what he cannot do directly; that is state

a discrimination claim against defendants. Allegations of a conspiracy to violate Title VII

cannot be the basis for a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3). Great Am. Fed. Sav.

& Loan Ass’n v. Novotny, 442 U.S. 366 (1979)(Section 1985(3) may not be invoked to

redress violations of Title VII). Thus, to the extent plaintiff alleges that defendants

conspired to deprive him of his rights under Title VII and the ADEA, the conspiracy claim

must be dismissed.

Furthermore, plaintiff has failed to adequately allege the existence of a conspiracy.

There are absolutely no facts alleged to demonstrate that the unions entered into any kind

of agreement with USPS to deprive plaintiff of his rights. Plaintiff does not set forth with

any particularity the individuals involved, any conversations or communications defendants

had, the dates of any actions taken by defendants, or the specific actions taken by

defendants in furtherance of a conspiracy. Moreover, plaintiff does not allege that the

unions had any role in the hiring process. 

Plaintiff’s allegations regarding a conspiracy are vague and conclusory; they cannot

sustain a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3). As plaintiff has failed to allege a conspiracy

claim under § 1985(3), his claim under 1986 must also be dismissed. See Barstad v.

Case 2:04-cv-00207-GH Document 77 Filed 01/18/06 Page 3 of 4
-4-

Murray County, 420 F. 3d 880, 887 (8th Cir. 2005). Plaintiff has failed to state a claim

against the defendant unions and they are hereby dismissed from this action. Additionally,

the conspiracy claims against USPS are hereby dismissed.

USPS has also filed a motion to dismiss those claims raised in the amended

complaint which were previously dismissed by the August 25th Order. To the extent

plaintiff seeks to reassert claims that were previously dismissed, plaintiff is barred from

doing so. The Court determined that plaintiff could proceed with his claim regarding the

denial of employment as a Rural Carrier Associate in Marianna in August, 1999.

USPS contends that plaintiff, in his amended complaint, now raises a claim that

USPS mishandled his EEO complaint and investigation. Plaintiff cannot maintain a claim

against USPS for its failure to process the complaint. See Jordan v. Summers, 205 F. 3d

337, 342 (7th Cir. 2000); Keeley v. Small, 391 F. Supp. 2d 30, 45 (D. D. C. 2005). 

Similarly, plaintiff does not have a cause of action against the USPS based on his

allegation that USPS interfered with his mail and failed to deliver the mail. See Pruitt v.

United States Postal Serv., 877 F. Supp. 807 (E. D. Mo. 1993) (United States is not

subject to suit for the loss, miscarriage or negligent transmission of letters or postal matter)

Accordingly, the unions’ motions to dismiss are granted and the National Rural

letter Carriers’ Association, the American Postal Workers, and the National Association

of Letter Carriers are hereby dismissed as defendants. USPS’s motion for partial

dismissal is granted; the conspiracy claims under 42 U.S.C. § § 1985 and 1986 are hereby

dismissed as well as claims concerning USPS’s mishandling of the EEO complaint and

investigation and its interference with the delivery of plaintiff’s mail. 

IT IS SO ORDERED this 18th day of January, 2006.

________________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-00207-GH Document 77 Filed 01/18/06 Page 4 of 4