Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-5_05-cv-05155/USCOURTS-arwd-5_05-cv-05155-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Employment Discrimination

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION

GRETCHEN C. NEUMANN PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 05-5155

JOHN E. POTTER, POSTMASTER GENERAL,

UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE DEFENDANT

O R D E R

Now on this 2nd day of May, 2007, come on for consideration

defendant’s Motion For Judgment As A Matter Of Law, Or In The

Alternative, For A New Trial (document #45), and defendant's

Motion For Leave To File Reply (document #51), and from said

motions, and the response thereto, the Court finds and orders as

follows:

1. Plaintiff Gretchen Neumann (“Neumann”) brought suit

against John E. Potter, Postmaster General of the United States

Postal Service, alleging that agents of the Postal Service had

subjected her to retaliation and a hostile work environment. The

Court broke Neumann's claims down into three categories, which it

followed in instructing the jury:

* the Discrete Act of Retaliation Claim, a contention that

Neumann's supervisors retaliated against her for

engaging in protected activity by unduly delaying

placing her in a new Level 6 position after her old

position was abolished;

* the Hostile Environment Retaliation Claim, a contention

Case 5:05-cv-05155-JLH Document 52 Filed 05/02/07 Page 1 of 27 PageID #: <pageID>
-2-

that Neumann's supervisors retaliated against her for

engaging in protected activity by subjecting her -- or

allowing other employees to subject her -- to a hostile

work environment; and

* the Gender Harassment Claim, a contention that Neumann

was subjected to discrimination in the form of gender

harassment by a co-worker.

At trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of defendant

on Neumann’s Discrete Act of Retaliation Claim. The jury returned

a verdict of $50,000 in favor of Neumann on her Hostile

Environment Retaliation Claim, and a verdict of $50,000 in favor

of Neumann on her Gender Harassment Claim.

2. Defendant now moves for judgment as a matter of law in

his favor on the claims upon which Neumann prevailed, or, in the

alternative, a new trial. He also moves for leave to file a reply

brief. The Motion For Leave To File Reply will be granted.

Defendant need not file an additional copy of his reply brief, as

the Court has read and fully considered the copy attached to his

Motion.

3. Motions for judgment as a matter of law are governed by

F.R.C.P. 50. The Eighth Circuit has prescribed a rigorous

standard of review on such a motion:

We view the evidence in the light most favorable to the

nonmovant, give it the benefit of every reasonable

inference, and resolve all factual disputes in its

favor. If the evidence viewed according to this

Case 5:05-cv-05155-JLH Document 52 Filed 05/02/07 Page 2 of 27 PageID #: <pageID>
-3-

standard would permit reasonable jurors to differ in the

conclusions they draw, judgment as a matter of law

cannot be granted.

Matrix Group Ltd., Inc. v. Rawlings Sporting Goods Co., 477 F.3d

583 (8th Cir. 2007). The Court is directed to "avoid[] making

credibility assessments or weighing the evidence." Synergetics,

Inc. v. Hurst, 477 F.3d 949, 956 (8th Cir. 2007).

When a judgment as a matter of law is granted after a jury

verdict, the Court may either direct the entry of the appropriate

judgment, or grant a new trial. F.R.C.P. 50(b). Because the

basis of defendant's request for a new trial is the alleged

excessiveness of the damages award, it appears that the

availability of a new trial as a form of relief under Rule 50,

rather than the provisions of F.R.C.P. 59, is the basis for

defendant's alternative request of a new trial. The Court will,

therefore, analyze the motion simply as one for judgment as a

matter of law.

4. Defendant contends that there was insufficient evidence

to support the jury's verdicts in favor of plaintiff, and that the

damages are excessive. He also renews his argument that plaintiff

failed to exhaust her administrative remedies.

5. Neumann first resists defendant's motion by contending

that defendant failed to properly preserve the issues as to

sufficiency of the evidence when he made his pre-verdict motion

for judgment as a matter of law. F.R.C.P. 50(a)(1) provides:

Case 5:05-cv-05155-JLH Document 52 Filed 05/02/07 Page 3 of 27 PageID #: <pageID>
-4-

If a party has been fully heard on an issue during a

jury trial and the court finds that a reasonable jury

would not have a legally sufficient evidentiary basis to

find for the party of that issue, the court may . . .

grant a motion for judgment as a matter of law against

the party. . . .

A motion for judgment as a matter of law "must specify the

judgment sought and the law and fact that entitle the movant to

judgment." F.R.C.P. 50(a)(2).

The rule is applied somewhat leniently: 

a post-trial motion for judgment as a matter of law may

not raise additional grounds that the party did not

raise in a pre-verdict motion, [but] the grounds are

considered to be sufficiently raised if the district

court and the nonmoving party are apprised of the basis

for the motion. Technical precision in stating the

grounds for the motion is not necessary.

Okruhlik v. University of Arkansas, 395 F.3d 872, 878, fn 5 (8th

Cir. 2005)(internal citations omitted). The Court does not take

this leniency to be such as to do completely away with the rule,

however.

The transcript of defendant's pre-verdict motion for judgment

as a matter of law shows that defendant asserted that the evidence

of "isolated incidents of particular employees" and "harassment

from co-workers who are not in supervisory positions" was

insufficient to constitute "actionable retaliation," and that

there was no evidence that failure to immediately place plaintiff

in a Level 6 job, or to commence her training promptly when she

was put in a Level 6 job, "was done with any type of motive of

retaliation or harm to her." Defendant further asserted that this

Case 5:05-cv-05155-JLH Document 52 Filed 05/02/07 Page 4 of 27 PageID #: <pageID>
-5-

conduct "could not be deemed sufficiently severe or pervasive to

alter the terms and conditions" of plaintiff's employment.

The Court finds that defendant fairly raised the issue of

sufficiency of the evidence as to Hostile Environment Retaliation

Claim by these arguments. However, defendant's arguments to the

contrary, the Court does not find that the pre-verdict motion for

judgment as a matter of law fairly raised the issue of sufficiency

of the evidence as to the Gender Harassment Claim. The arguments

went specifically to those concepts subsumed in the terms

"retaliation" and "hostile environment," and did not in any way

address "gender."

The Court will, therefore, deny defendant's Motion For

Judgment As A Matter Of Law as it pertains to sufficiency of the

evidence on the Gender Harassment Claim, because defendant failed

to properly preserve that issue.

6. Turning to the issue of the sufficiency of the evidence

to support the Hostile Environment Retaliation Claim, the legal

rule is that to establish a prima facie case of retaliation, a

plaintiff has to show that she engaged in protected activity, that

she suffered an adverse employment action, and that there was a

causal connection between the two. The defendant then may rebut

the prima facie case by offering a legitimate, non-retaliatory

reason for the adverse action, following which case the plaintiff

must demonstrate that this reason is pretextual. Shanklin v.

Case 5:05-cv-05155-JLH Document 52 Filed 05/02/07 Page 5 of 27 PageID #: <pageID>
-6-

Fitzgerald, 397 F.3d 596, 603 (8th Cir. 2005).

The anti-retaliation provisions of Title VII make it 

an unlawful employment practice for an employer to

discriminate against any of his employees or applicants

for employment . . . because he has opposed any practice

made an unlawful employment practice by this subchapter,

or because he has made a charge, testified, assisted, or

participated in any manner in an investigation,

proceeding, or hearing under this subchapter.

42 U.S.C. §2000e-2(a).

This provision protects an employee "not from all

retaliation, but from retaliation that produces an injury or harm.

. . . a plaintiff must show that a reasonable employee would have

found the challenged action materially adverse." Burlington

Northern and Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White, 126 S.Ct. 2405, 2414-

15 (2006). While the assignment of job duties is not

automatically actionable, retaliatory work assignments are a

classic form of forbidden retaliation. Id., 2045 at 2416-17. 

A review of the exhibits and testimony that have been placed

before the Court in connection with the Motion For Judgment As A

Matter Of Law, viewed in the light most favorable to the

nonmovant, Neuman, reflects the following:

* Neumann started working for the Postal Service in 1994,

sorting mail. Between 1995 and 1998, she filed 22 EEO

complaints, relating variously to working conditions,

overtime, training, leave, promotion, and assignment of

duties. These cases were eventually consolidated, and

Case 5:05-cv-05155-JLH Document 52 Filed 05/02/07 Page 6 of 27 PageID #: <pageID>
Level 6 jobs paid more, required more skill, and had less supervision than Level 1

5 jobs.

-7-

were resolved favorably to Neumann in mid-1999.

* In April, 2002, Neuman became what is known as an

"unassigned regular" when her Level 6 job with the

Postal Service was eliminated by automation. While

Neumann could have bid for a job at a Level 5 position ,

1

she was not required to do so, and chose not to do so.

She chose, instead, to retain her Level 6

classification, pay, and benefits, while waiting for a

Level 6 job to become available. 

* Under the terms of a Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU")

between the Postal Service and the American Postal

Workers Union (the "Union") related to the automation,

if there were insufficient same or higher level job

vacancies to accommodate employees displaced by

automation, "preference eligible employees" were to be

placed first into same or higher level vacancies as they

occurred. If a vacancy in a lower-level job occurred,

the junior non-preference eligible employee from the

same level as the preference eligible employee was to be

moved into the lower level position, thus making a place

at the higher level for the preference eligible

employee. This practice was referred to as "bumping"

the junior employee.

Case 5:05-cv-05155-JLH Document 52 Filed 05/02/07 Page 7 of 27 PageID #: <pageID>
-8-

* As of April 20, 2002, Neumann was the senior preference

eligible employee displaced by automation in the

Fayetteville plant. The junior non-preference eligible

employee at Level 6 was Virginia Hickman, the Business

Mail Entry Unit ("BMEU") clerk.

* Neumann's immediate supervisor was Gary Noe. Noe was

aware that Neumann had filed "quite a few" EEO

complaints since 1997. In fact, Noe, along with another

supervisor, Mark Bush, had been named in some of those

complaints. Neumann had also named Noe in a complaint

to the National Labor Relations Board in 1998. However,

after the consolidated case was resolved in 1999,

Neumann did not file any other EEO complaints until the

one that resulted in the case at bar, and she had

"worked hard to restore a positive relationship" with

Noe.

* When she became an unassigned regular, Neumann no longer

"owned" a job position, but was at the mercy of her

supervisor as to her daily assignments. She was given

her work assignments by Noe.

* Neumann asked Noe to place her in Hickman's Level 6 job,

but this did not happen. Noe also ignored Neumann's

requests to be placed temporarily in Level 6 jobs for

which she was qualified, when a temporary person was

Case 5:05-cv-05155-JLH Document 52 Filed 05/02/07 Page 8 of 27 PageID #: <pageID>
-9-

needed in those jobs. On at least one occasion Noe

assigned a Level 5 employee to fill in for a Level 6

employee, and assigned Neumann to do the Level 5

employee's job. 

* Noe frequently assigned Neumann to work with Jim

Warford, a slow worker who made a lot of mistakes. Male

employees had been assigned to help Warford in the past,

without incident, but Neumann's experiences with Warford

were unpleasant and led to Neumann asking for

intervention from Noe and his superiors on several

occasions.

* Because Noe did not place her in a Level 6 job, Neumann

sought help from the Union. Hickman, however, was an

officer in the Union, and Neumann was not even a member.

The Union was not helpful in Neumann's quest to be

placed in Hickman's job.

* On December 7, 2002, Neumann sent Plant Manager Gary

Blackburn, Noe's supervisor, a letter complaining of

what she perceived as a "veiled threat" by a former

employee, Fred Cusanelli, who had figured centrally in

her EEO complaints in the 1990s. She noted that

Cusanelli had been to the plant several times

"socializing with his union cronies," and had asked

another employee to let Neumann know "that Mr. Cusanelli

Case 5:05-cv-05155-JLH Document 52 Filed 05/02/07 Page 9 of 27 PageID #: <pageID>
Regional headquarters for the Fayetteville offices were located in Little Rock, 2

Arkansas.

-10-

had received his weapons permit and would now be

carrying a gun on his person." She asked that Cusanelli

not be allowed on the premises, since the workplace was

not a customer service facility and Cusanelli was not an

employee. Blackburn did not respond to this letter.

* In February, 2003, Mark Bush became Plant Manager.

Neumann asked Noe to set up a meeting with Bush about

her job, but got no response.

* In early May, 2003, Neumann "caught" Bush -- who worked

a different shift -- in the supervisor's office and

asked if they could talk about the MOU and Neumann

getting Hickman's job. Bush said he did not have time

to talk then, but that they could meet "in the future

sometime." No future date was set and Bush did not recontact Neumann.

* A few weeks later Neumann again "caught" Bush in the

supervisor's office, and he said he would set up a time

to talk with her, but again, he did not do so.

* At the end of May, 2003, Neumann finally persuaded Bush

to talk with her about her job assignment. Bush read

the MOU, said it sounded like Neumann should have an

assigned Level 6 position, and that he would "check with

his labor people in Little Rock" and get back with her. 2

Case 5:05-cv-05155-JLH Document 52 Filed 05/02/07 Page 10 of 27 PageID #: <pageID>
There was testimony to the effect that between 1997 and 2002, the facility where 3

Neumann worked had ten to twelve different Acting Plant Managers. The reasons for this

continual turnover were not explored.

-11-

He did not get back with her.

* On June 17, 2003, Neumann again "caught" Bush in the

supervisor's office, and asked what was going on with

her job. Bush told her "you're not going to get a Level

6 position. You'll just have to talk to someone in

Little Rock about it." Bush would not identify who, in

Little Rock, Neumann needed to talk to.

* On June 18, 2003, Neumann sent Bush a letter, asking him

to state in writing his reasons for his "decision to

interpret the MOU" in such a way as to not allow

"bumping." Bush did not respond to the letter.

Sometime in July, Bush left the position of Plant

Manager.3

* On September 30, 2003, Neumann sent a letter to Acting

Plant Manager David Fisher, indicating that she had

information that a coworker, Charlie Hoag, might be

stalking her. She also stated that "supposedly" Hoag

and Warford were "'watching my every move' and recording

my breaks and other details about my workday and work

habits." She indicated that since she had become an

unassigned regular, she had had "behavioral problems"

with both Hoag and Warford, and asked that the situation

Case 5:05-cv-05155-JLH Document 52 Filed 05/02/07 Page 11 of 27 PageID #: <pageID>
-12-

be investigated and a "permanent stop" be put to it.

* Fisher, however, did not investigate -- or follow up --

the complaints in Neumann's September 30, 2003, letter.

He merely passed the letter down to Neumann's supervisor

Noe, and heard no more about it. 

* The Postal Service promulgates a Manager's Guide To

Understanding Sexual Harassment, which contains detailed

guidelines for dealing with employee complaints about

conduct that might be considered sexually harassing.

The process contemplates that "managers, postmasters,

and supervisors to whom a complaint is brought" will

conduct an investigation, or if they do not "have the

necessary authority to launch an inquiry, they must

bring the complaint to the attention of a higher level

supervisor or manager who does." The Manager's Guide

also directs a manager to "[f]ollow up to ensure that

harassment does not continue and that retaliation does

not occur," and provides that "[a] manager who fails to

fulfill his or her obligation under Postal Service

policy to address harassment claims may also be found to

have retaliated against an employee because of the

adverse effect of that willful indifference."

* The Manager's Guide notes that "hostile environment

claims can encompass harassing behavior that is not

Case 5:05-cv-05155-JLH Document 52 Filed 05/02/07 Page 12 of 27 PageID #: <pageID>
-13-

necessarily sexual in nature. For example, it can be

sexual harassment to single out one sex with acts of

aggression, intimidation, hostility, rudeness, name

calling, or other types of abusive conduct."

* When Noe got Neumann's September 30, 2003, letter, he

talked to Hoag, but not to Warford or Neumann, nor to a

third employee identified in the letter. He discounted

Neumann's concerns as hearsay, focusing on her use of

the word "supposedly." Noe's marginal inquiry does not

fulfill the requirements of the Manager's Guide, which

directs managers to "[t]ake every incident or complaint

seriously." The Manager's Guide contains a detailed set

of instructions, including guidelines and checklists,

for interviewing (a) complainants, (b) those alleged to

have harassed them, and (c) witnesses. It specifically

directs managers to "[i]nterview the alleged harassee."

* On September 22, 2003, Neumann sent a letter to Noe and

Fisher, stating that it had come to her attention that

a Level 6 Clerk position would be vacated as of October

3, 2003, and that she would like to be placed in this

position. She was not placed in the position.

* At some point in this series of events (the Court has

not been able to ascertain the precise date from the

evidence adduced in support of the motion), Neumann met

Case 5:05-cv-05155-JLH Document 52 Filed 05/02/07 Page 13 of 27 PageID #: <pageID>
-14-

with Acting Postmaster Sandy Woodburn and Noe about

Neumann's problems with Warford. Neumann described her

problems with Warford, including Warford's statement

that he "has such a hard-on for me he doesn't have

enough skin left to blink his eyes." The Postmaster

told Neumann she needed to take the matter up with her

supervisors, and Neumann responded that she had already

taken it up with them, and they had not done anything.

Noe said nothing. The Postmaster then told Neumann that

the meeting was over, and that Neumann would "just have

to file an EEO, or whatever you have to do." The

Manager's Guide specifically instructs managers not to

"dismiss employees by telling them to file an EEO

complaint or a grievance. You must manage the problem

yourself, even if the employee also chooses to file a

grievance or an EEO complaint."

* On October 6, 2003, Neumann filed the EEO complaint that

led to the case at bar.

* On October 27, 2003, Fisher sent Neumann a letter

stating that she was to be placed in Hickman's "BMEU

position" when she successfully completed the required

training. This assignment caused a grievance to be

filed by Hickman.

* Neumann did not actually get to start either the BMEU

Case 5:05-cv-05155-JLH Document 52 Filed 05/02/07 Page 14 of 27 PageID #: <pageID>
Neumann worked the night shift. 4

-15-

position or training for it until April, 2004. This was

contrary to customary practice, pursuant to which an

employee assigned to a new position was allowed to start

work in the new position before training so as to become

familiar with the position. It was also not normal for

an employee to have to wait six months before getting

trained for a newly assigned position. 

* On November 14, 2003, Neumann sent a Freedom of

Information ("FOI") request to Acting Plant Manager

Roger Nichols, requesting copies of "any and all

communication on the subject of my being assigned to the

BMEU position and/or the subject of the incumbent

employee losing her right to the position." Nichols did

not respond to this letter.

* On November 17, 2003, Neumann sent a letter to Noe,

again complaining of harassment by Warford. This letter

was triggered by an incident between Warford and another

female employee, Karen Widick, but it focused almost

totally on Neumann's own problems with Warford. Neumann

noted that she had "been an ongoing target of

[Warford's] bad attitude and hostility for the past

year," and that she was "apprehensive . . . all night

every night working anywhere near [Warford] because I 4

Case 5:05-cv-05155-JLH Document 52 Filed 05/02/07 Page 15 of 27 PageID #: <pageID>
-16-

am afraid of being targeted in some way, possibly

physically." She noted that Noe was "fully aware

because he has come to you and other supervisors to

constantly complain about what or where I am working or

trying to 'bump' me, he seems to particularly blame me

for many of his problems since I became an unassigned

regular and began 'stealing' his overtime and 'doing his

job'." The letter recited a litany of problems Neumann

had encountered with Warford over the past year, and

concluded with the request that the Postal Service "do

something constructive to educate this guy about the

professional standards we are all expected to adhere to

in our workplace." 

* When Noe got Neumann's November 17, 2003, letter, he

interviewed Widick, Warford, and a third employee,

Emmett Biswell, but he did not interview Neumann.

Although he concluded that Warford was creating a

hostile environment, he continued to assign Neumann to

help Warford do his job.

* On November 21, 2003, Neumann sent a letter to Nichols,

stating that "[i]n the past year I have constantly

complained about personal harassment and targeting by at

least one fellow employee to three supervisors, two

plant managers and a postmaster. So far I have seen

Case 5:05-cv-05155-JLH Document 52 Filed 05/02/07 Page 16 of 27 PageID #: <pageID>
-17-

nothing much done about it to prevent it from recurring,

and it does continue to reoccur." The letter stated

that the problem started when Neumann became an

unassigned regular, and detailed some of the problems

Neumann had experienced. It concluded by asking "[w]hat

exactly do I have to do to be allowed to come in here

and do my work without disruption from all this nonsense

and 'angst' and just go home at the end of the day? Why

can't I get any officials to document and deal with

constructively the issues I repeatedly identify as

causing disruptions to my environment and productive

work?"

* Nichols did not investigate Neumann's November 21, 2003,

letter, as he was required to do pursuant to the

Manager's Guide. He testified that he would only

involve himself in such investigation if it was

something "immediate and extremely serious." For

"something that's been going on for awhile, like this,

I would have the supervisor investigate it." Nichols

sent Neumann's letter to Noe, and did not follow up.

* On January 26, 2004, Neumann sent Nichols a second FOI

request, asking for "any and all information and

grievances submitted in regard to or in any way related

to my being assigned to the BMEU position or Virginia

Case 5:05-cv-05155-JLH Document 52 Filed 05/02/07 Page 17 of 27 PageID #: <pageID>
-18-

Hickman's being removed from the BMEU position."

Nichols did not respond to this letter.

* On February 5, 2004, Neumann sent a letter to Nichols,

noting that she had not had an "assigned schedule" in

over a year and a half, and that she was an unassigned

regular awaiting training for the BMEU position. She

asked for a schedule change so that she could

familiarize herself with the BMEU position, and stated

her belief that the employee who currently held the

position "was placed in the office several weeks or

months before her schooling and tests." She received no

response to this letter.

* On March 12, 2004, Neumann sent a letter to E.W.

Waldemayer, the Postal Service Regional Director in

Little Rock, Arkansas. In the letter, Neumann stated

that she had made several FOI requests that had gone

completely unacknowledged, and that the requests related

to an employee grievance over her placement in the BMEU

position. She noted that "I have been fighting for this

MOU to be enforced for nearly two years. During that

time I have been working completely out of schedule. .

. . I am currently awaiting a change of schedule and

assignment to BMEU school in Norman, OK." She

reiterated the FOI requests made to her Plant Managers.

Case 5:05-cv-05155-JLH Document 52 Filed 05/02/07 Page 18 of 27 PageID #: <pageID>
-19-

Waldemayer did not respond to this letter.

* On April 19, 2004, Neumann finally received her change

of schedule for the BMEU position. 

When this evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to

Neumann, and given the benefit of all favorable inferences, the

Court believes that, while reasonable jurors could differ in the

conclusions to be drawn from it on Neumann's Hostile Environment

Retaliation Claim, it could support a verdict in her favor.

Defendant's contentions to the contrary are that Neumann failed to

prove that she experienced a hostile work environment, and that

Neumann's protected activity -- the filing of the EEO complaints

in the late 1990s -- is too remote in time to form the nexus

required to prove retaliation. 

(a) As to the hostility of Neumann's environment, defendant

contends that it was nothing more than unpleasant conduct and rude

comments of co-workers, insufficient as a matter of law because

not so severe and pervasive as to alter the conditions of her

employment.

In Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 510 U.S. 17 (1993), the

Supreme Court outlined what constitutes a hostile environment,

admittedly not "a mathematically precise test," thus:

[W]hether an environment is "hostile" or "abusive" can

be determined only by looking at all the circumstances.

These may include the frequency of the discriminatory

conduct; its severity; whether it is physically

threatening or humiliating, or a mere offensive

utterance; and whether it unreasonably interferes with

Case 5:05-cv-05155-JLH Document 52 Filed 05/02/07 Page 19 of 27 PageID #: <pageID>
-20-

an employee's work performance. The effect on the

employee's psychological well-being is, of course,

relevant to determining whether the plaintiff actually

found the environment abusive. But while psychological

harm, like any other relevant factor, may be taken into

account, no single factor is required.

510 U.S. at 23. The conduct must be both objectively and

subjectively perceived as creating a hostile environment. 510

U.S. at 21.

When examined in light of the factors in Harris, the Court

finds the evidence weighs in favor of a finding that Neumann's

work environment was a hostile one:

* The abusive conduct was frequent. Noe directed

Neumann's activities on a daily basis, since she had no regular

job assignment. Thus he had the opportunity to take hostile

action against her every day for two years. He exercised this

opportunity frequently by making Neumann work with Warford,

knowing that Warford was creating a hostile environment for

Neumann. He refused to place Neumann in Level 6 temporary

positions even when they became available. He refused to fairly

investigate Neumann's complaints about Warford and Hoag.

* The conduct was at times severe. Noe and his

supervisors refused to give Neumann any information or guidance or

assistance in implementing the MOU, and Fisher, Woodburn, and

Nichols refused to address Neumann's concerns when she attempted

to bypass Noe after Noe failed to respond to her complaints about

Hoag and Warford. Neumann was essentially left with nowhere to

Case 5:05-cv-05155-JLH Document 52 Filed 05/02/07 Page 20 of 27 PageID #: <pageID>
-21-

turn for help with the situation in which she found herself.

* The conduct had a physically threatening component. Coworkers passed on a threat from Cusanelli about being armed -- a

physically threatening situation in an era when "going postal" had

become a part of the national vocabulary. Blackburn ignored

Neumann's concerns about Cusanelli. Co-workes passed on

threatening information about Hoag and Warford stalking Neumann.

Fisher and Noe ignored Neumann's concerns about Hoag and Warford.

Neumann worked the night shift with Union workers unfriendly to

her over the Hickman situation, and with Warford, and Noe

continued to assign Neumann to work with Warford even after she

informed him that she was afraid Warford might physically harm

her.

* It also had a humiliation component. Noe on at least

one occasion allowed a Level 5 employee to fill in for an absent

Level 6 employee, and required Neumann to fill in for the Level 5

employee. She was also given the "silent treatment" with regards

to almost every attempt to get information from her superiors,

including requests specifically made pursuant to federal statute,

the FOI request.

* The conduct unreasonably interfered with Neumann's

ability to work. She was forced to deal with problems from

Warford and Hoag; worry about Cusanelli; and cope with Union

members angry about Hickman's job loss. She was forced to work at

Case 5:05-cv-05155-JLH Document 52 Filed 05/02/07 Page 21 of 27 PageID #: <pageID>
-22-

a lower level job, and thus not to her full potential. 

* It affected Neumann's psychological wellbeing -- to the

extent that she spent over $2,000 on mental health care.

Reasonable jurors could certainly conclude that Neumann

subjectively considered her working environment hostile. In

addition, the Court finds the environment described by the

evidence to have been objectively a hostile one. The Court

believes that a reasonable employee would consider the treatment

to which Neumann was subjected to create a hostile work

environment.

(b) With regard to the nexus between protected activity and

adverse employment action, defendant relies on the statement in

Shanklin that "[s]tanding alone, a longer time gap between the

protected activity and the adverse employment action weakens the

inference of retaliation that arises when a retaliatory act occurs

shortly after a complaint," and that with a ten-month delay, "any

causal nexus inference tends to evaporate." 397 F.3d at 604

(citation and internal quotation marks omitted). 

While this is a correct statement of the law, Neumann's

filing of EEO complaints does not "stand alone" as her only basis

for demonstrating a nexus between protected activity and adverse

employment action. It stands in the context of several significant

events:

* Neumann's protected activity involved complaints against

Case 5:05-cv-05155-JLH Document 52 Filed 05/02/07 Page 22 of 27 PageID #: <pageID>
-23-

the very person who was on the front line in carrying out the

retaliatory conduct of which she complains, Noe. 

* Noe's treatment of Neumann took on a retaliatory cast at

precisely the time that Neumann moved from a regular position that

required little supervision, to one where Noe had the power to

send her to different job duties and stations on a daily or even

an hourly basis, thus acquiring significant power to manipulate

her job environment. 

* It also coincided with Neumann's unenviable (but

legitimate) request to bump another employee -- a situation

tailor-made to create dissension in the workplace which would

provide cover and support for Noe's retaliatory conduct. 

* During a significant portion of the time these events

were transpiring, Noe's immediate superior was Bush, who had also

been a target of Neumann's earlier protected activity. When he

became Plant Manager, Bush was not only in a position of power

over Neumann, but in a position to aid and abet Noe. 

* When Neumann tried to bypass Noe and bring her

complaints to Plant Managers other than Bush, those Plant Managers

simply referred the complaints back to Noe -- although that was

not appropriate under the Manager's Guide -- thereby preventing

Neumann from escaping from Noe's power over her. 

Thus, rather than "standing alone," the EEO complaints which

a jury could readily find gave Noe the inclination to retaliate

Case 5:05-cv-05155-JLH Document 52 Filed 05/02/07 Page 23 of 27 PageID #: <pageID>
-24-

against Neumann are coupled with job circumstances which gave him

a particularly fertile opportunity to retaliate.

In addition, the Court notes that in Shanklin, "[t]he lack of

causal connection is reinforced by the undisputed evidence of

Shanklin's failure to meet [her employer's] expectations."

Neumann, by contrast, was considered an excellent employee, even

by Noe and Bush. 

For these reasons, the Court is persuaded that Neumann has

advanced sufficient evidence of a hostile work environment, and a

causal connection between her protected activity and the

retaliation which allowed that hostile environment to flourish, to

support the jury's verdict. Defendant's motion for judgment as a

matter of law on the issue of sufficiency of the evidence to

support the Hostile Environment Retaliation Claim will, therefore,

be denied.

7. Defendant also contends that the damages awarded to

Neumann are excessive. He contends that Neumann needed mental

health care before she was harassed and subjected to retaliation,

and that the harassment and retaliation were not severe or

pervasive enough to warrant the sums awarded. Defendant reasons

that if the harassment had been severe, it would have been

witnessed by coworkers, and that if it had been pervasive, Neumann

would have bid on a Level 5 job to escape it.

The Court rejects out of hand the notion that because a

Case 5:05-cv-05155-JLH Document 52 Filed 05/02/07 Page 24 of 27 PageID #: <pageID>
-25-

plaintiff has needed mental health care in the past, she could not

have suffered mental anguish or emotional distress as a result of

present conduct. Merely to state the proposition is to demonstrate

how unsupportable it is. If anything, a person who has had mental

health issues in the past might be more fragile, more susceptible

to such injuries, than a person who had always experienced robust

mental health. 

The evidence from Neumann's mental health care professional

in this case supports a finding that she did, in fact, experience

mental anguish or emotional distress as a result of the course of

events outlined in ¶6, and Neumann testified that she spent over

$2,000 obtaining such care.

The contention that if the harassment had been severe it

would have been witnessed by coworkers is considerably undermined

by the testimony of Noe, that "usually when we get situations in

the postal service, nobody wants to give you a statement. Even if

they're a witness, they don't want to give statements. They don't

want to, you know, be involved . . . ." It is also weakened by

the reasonable supposition that an employee would avoid violating

"zero tolerance" workplace policies in front of adverse witnesses.

Finally, there is the surprising contention that if the

harassment had been really pervasive, Neumann would have bid on a

Level 5 job to escape it. That is tantamount to saying the

solution for employment discrimination is to get a new job -- a

Case 5:05-cv-05155-JLH Document 52 Filed 05/02/07 Page 25 of 27 PageID #: <pageID>
-26-

notion that runs completely contrary to Title VII. Neumann was

not required to seek out a different job, much less one with less

prestige, autonomy, or responsibility, to escape harassment or

retaliation. It was the obligation of the Postal Service to

investigate her complaints, and put a stop to the conduct giving

rise to them.

"A verdict is not excessive unless the result is monstrous or

shocking." Thorne v. Welk Investment, Inc., 197 F.3d 1205, 1212

(8th Cir. 1999). Here, Neumann proved up over $43,000 in wages

that she was entitled to be paid for "out of schedule" work, and

over $2,000 expended for mental health care for stress related to

her job situation. She endured a two-year course of retaliation,

during which her superiors allowed her to languish in a position

where she was frequently required to work with a coworker who

sexually harassed and possibly even stalked her. At all levels

they ignored her requests for assistance and information. A

damages award totaling $100,000 for this experience does not shock

the conscience of the Court.

8. Defendant makes two arguments in his Motion For Judgment

As A Matter Of Law that essentially ask the Court to revisit its

ruling, in connection with a motion for summary judgment, on

aspects of administrative exhaustion. These issues were fully

explored in connection with the motion for summary judgment, and

defendant offers no persuasive reason why the Court should

Case 5:05-cv-05155-JLH Document 52 Filed 05/02/07 Page 26 of 27 PageID #: <pageID>
-27-

reconsider its earlier decision. The motion will be denied as to

those issues.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendant’s Motion For Judgment

As A Matter Of Law, Or In The Alternative, For A New Trial

(document #45) is denied.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant's Motion For Leave To

File Reply (document #51) is granted.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 /s/ Jimm Larry Hendren 

JIMM LARRY HENDREN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:05-cv-05155-JLH Document 52 Filed 05/02/07 Page 27 of 27 PageID #: <pageID>