Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-86-02844/USCOURTS-ca10-86-02844-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 

---

HERBERT 

v. 

WILLIAM 

General 

Postal 

FI LED 

Uoited States Court of Appeals 

·renth Cir~..tit 

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

OCT.. 1989 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

STAERKEL, ) 

) 

Plaintiff/Appellant, ) 

) 

) No. 86-2844 

) ( D. Kansas) 

BOLGER, Postmaster ) ( D. C. No. 83-4235) 

of the United States ) 

Service, ) 

) 

Defendant/Appellee. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before SEYMOUR, ANDERSON, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. 

Herbert Staerkel appeals from a summary judgment dismissing 

his age discrimination action against the postmaster general. The 

district court held that Staerkel failed to file a timely 

administrative charge under 29 U.S.C. § 633a, 29 C.F.R. 

§ 1613.214(a)(l)(i), which requires an administrative complaint to 

be lodged within 30 days of the alleged act of discrimination. 

See Johnson v. Orr, 747 F.2d 1352, 1357 (10th Cir. 1984). 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 86-2844 Document: 01019974285 Date Filed: 10/06/1989 Page: 1 
Staerkel concedes that the informal complaint which he filed 

on October 25, 1978, was subject to the 30 day notification period 

and, therefore, was required to relate to an act of discrimination 

occurring on or after September 25, 1978. He also concedes that 

his complaint did not specify any alleged unlawful act which 

occurred between September 25 and October 25, 1978. R. Vol. I, 

tab 37 at 4. However, he contests the district court's finding 

that no discriminatory conduct occurred during that period. 

Staerkel's theory is that the postal service was guilty of a 

continuing violation, before and during the 30-day period, 

characterized by harassing Staerkel on a daily basis and forcing 

him to attempt to case and carry more mail than the postal service 

knew he could deliver in eight hours. Brief of Appellant at 8. 

He claims these allegedly unlawful actions spanned a period from 

1976 through his reassignment to lighter work as a clerk in June 

1979. Id. at 8-9. Before the district court Staerkel argued more 

prominently than he has on appeal that the informal complaint was 

an attempt to enforce the terms of a December 19, 1977 settlement 

agreement which provided, inter alia, that he would be accorded a 

special route inspection and his route would "be adjusted 

accordingly if needed.'' R. Vol. I, tab 37 at 2, 3, 5. 

The essential facts of the case are not disputed, and we 

review the district court's grant of summary judgment under the 

principles set out in Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 

242, 248 (1986), and Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-

23 (1986). 

-2-

Appellate Case: 86-2844 Document: 01019974285 Date Filed: 10/06/1989 Page: 2 
The record shows that beginning in 1973 there were serious 

differences between Staerkel and his superiors with respect to 

Staerkel's performance of his duties as a mail carrier. 

Staerkel's recurring complaint was that he was being overloaded 

with too many stops to accomplish in an eight-hour day. As he 

stated in the court below: 

"Mr. Staerkel carried a route after the 1973 settlement 

with no complaints for approximately two years. After 

that time the Postal Service began adding stops to his 

route, without taking a corresponding number of stops 

off to equalize it. From 1976 - 1978, the record shows 

that while 185 stops were added to Mr. Staerkel's route, 

only 75 were deleted. (See plaintiff's Exhibit l; 

Plaintiff's Depo., p.45, 1.21-24.) It is unrealistic to 

expect an employee to get faster as he gets older, and 

it is unreasonable to expect someone to increase his 

average delivery time by approximately 25%." 

R. Vol. I, tab 37 at 6. 

The postal service's position was summarized in an August 17, 

1978 letter from Postmaster Robert w. Domme to the Office of 

Workers' Compensation Programs: 

"You have all the forms pertinent to Mr. Staerkel's 

injury on 1-24-78. Since you state he was in your 

office, you, no doubt, have been able to ascertain from 

his comments his attitude concerning his work. 

We feel this office has not expected more from Mr. 

Staerkel than it has from any other city carrier, -

eight hours of work for eight hours of pay. All routes 

have been adjusted under the same regulations, which is 

only fair for all full time city carriers. We enclose a 

copy of a 'fitness for duty,' obtained 7-13-77, for Mr. 

Staerkel. 

Routes are obtained by the bidding procedure, and all 

routes are 'put up for bid' when that route becomes 

vacant for any reason. Mr. Staerkel has had his route 

for over five years and has had many opportunities to 

'bid off' during this period of time. Many carriers 

have retired and their vacant routes were awarded to 

city carriers with much less seniority than Mr. Staerkel 

has. In other words, if he had been dissatisfied with 

-3-

Appellate Case: 86-2844 Document: 01019974285 Date Filed: 10/06/1989 Page: 3 
his route, he has had adequate opportunity to secure 

another route. 

Concerning Mr. Staerkel's letters, we would have no 

comments except to state that we are sure they 

adequately express his feelings. 

At the present time, we have a total of 150 full time 

city carriers. All routes are adjusted in accordance 

with current regulations and one position description 

covers ALL carriers, - copy attached." 

R. Vol. I, tab 37, Ex. 1 to plaintiff's response to defendant's 

motion for summary judgment. 

The differences over Mr. Staerkel's workload and alleged 

deficiencies in the performance of his duties resulted in two 

written settlement agreements, one on February 26, 1974 and the 

second on December 19, 1977. 1 

1 The 1977 Agreement stated: 

"As a complete and final settlement of the subject case 

and without prejudice to the position of the Postal 

Service in this or any other case, and with the understanding that this settlement shall not be cited by the 

Union in any other grievance proceedings, or in any 

other forum, the following resolution has been arrived 

at between the parties: 

1. The parties at Step 2B recognize that the 

grievant has a severe physical impairment 

which may become debilitating in the 

future. 

2. A special route inspection will be 

conducted in accordance with provisions 

of the M-39, during the last week of 

January, and the route will be adjusted 

accordingly if needed. 

3. Management will submit a list of four 

route inspectors selected from the Kansas 

City, Missouri MSC and the NALC will 

select one inspector from the list 

submitted. 

4. Following the special inspection Mr. 

[footnote continued .•. ] 

-4-

Appellate Case: 86-2844 Document: 01019974285 Date Filed: 10/06/1989 Page: 4 
In his informal complaint filed on October 25, 1978, Staerkel 

alleged as follows: 

"Mr. Herbert Staerkel accused Postmaster Robert w. 

Demme, Postmaster and Mr. Arch L. Briggs, Director, 

Customer Services of discrimination because of his age 

of 63 years old. He states that they will not give him 

a route down to 8 hours, and that his route has not been 

checked in two years. He states that he is receiving 

two hours help daily and this is not being done with 

other employees." 

[ •.. footnote continued] 

Staerkel will be allowed one week to 

adjust to the route. 

5. Following the one week period of 

adjustment, Mr. Staerkel will complete 

the route in 8 hours daily unless 

otherwise authorized by management. 

Should he fail to do so, he will be 

removed from the route and placed in a 

light duty assignment as identified in 

the Clerk-Craft local memo. 

6. The two suspensions will be expunged and 

the grievant will receive back pay for 

the time spent on suspension at the rate 

of pay applicable at the time of 

suspension. 

7. Unfair Labor Practice 17CA 7948(P} will 

be withdrawn by the complainant. 

THIS CONSTITUTES A FULL AND COMPLETE SETTLEMENT OF THE 

SUBJECT CASES AND FULLY RESOLVES ANY AND ALL ISSUES 

PERTAINING THERETO. 

/s/ 

John W. Herleman 

United States Postal Service 

R. Vol. I, tab 30, Ex. G. 

-5-

s/ 

Gene Hacker, National 

Business Agent, NALC 

s 

William H. Bevans, 

President, Branch 10 

s 

Herbert F. Staerkel, 

Letter Carrier" 

Appellate Case: 86-2844 Document: 01019974285 Date Filed: 10/06/1989 Page: 5 
R. Vol. I, tab 30, Ex. I at 3. In his formal complaint filed on 

December 29, 1978, Staerkel filled-in the "specific action or 

situation" and "corrective action" portions of the form as 

follows: 

"I feel that i [sic] am being discriminated against 

because of my age as i [sic] am being told or forced to 

case and carry more mail than was intended for me to 

case and carry as was agreed upon after the arbitration 

hearing in Feb 1974. 

I feel that my route should be put back as it was 

after the adjustment was made after the arbitration 

hearing held in Feb 1974 or equal to it to my 

satisfaction." 

Id. at Ex. J. An attachment to the form discussed his workload 

complaints beginning in 1973, and again concluded that "i [sic] 

feel that my route should be put back the way it was agreed upon 

after the arbitration hearing that was held in early 1974." Id. 

We have considered the continuing violation theory in several 

cases. See Gray v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 858 F.2d 610, 614-15 

(10th Cir. 1988); Bruno v. Western Elec. Co., 829 F.2d 957, 960-61 

(10th Cir. 1987); Furr v. AT & T Technologies, Inc., 824 F.2d 

1537, 1543-44 (10th Cir. 1987). While those cases are instructive 

they are, nevertheless, fact specific. The inquiry, of necessity, 

turns on the facts and context of each particular case. See Berry 

v. Board of Supervisors of L.S.U., 715 F.2d 971, 981 (5th Cir. 

1983). And, a continuing violation is not stated if all that 

appears is that the plaintiff continues to suffer from the ongoing 

effects of some past discrimination. See Goldman v. Sears Roebuck 

& Co., 607 F.2d 1014, 1018-19 (1st Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 445 

U.S. 929 (1980). See also Delaware State College v. Ricks, 449 

-6-

Appellate Case: 86-2844 Document: 01019974285 Date Filed: 10/06/1989 Page: 6 
U.S. 250, 258 (1980}; Desroches v. U.S. Postal Service, 631 F. 

Supp. 1375, 1381 (D.N.H. 1986). 

Looking at the record in this case as a whole, we are 

convinced that Mr. Staerkel's complaint goes directly to each of 

those occasions when stops were added to his route, including a 

single instance in 1978 which added 32 stops in August of that 

year. Brief of Appellant at 8. His harassment claims were 

directly related to and intertwined with his assignment to case 

and carry to the prescribed number of stops. 

Mr. Staerkel had a history of being acutely aware of and 

sensitive to any increase in his assigned duties. Under the 

circumstances, an assignment which increased his stops certainly 

constituted an act having "the degree of permanence which should 

trigger an employee's awareness of and duty to assert his or her 

rights, or which should indicate to the employee that the 

continued existence of the adverse consequences of the act is to 

be expected without being dependent on a continuing intent to 

discriminate." Berry v. Board of Supervisors of L.S.U., 715 F.2d 

at 981. The breach of contract complaint relating to the 1977 

agreement, assuming its relevance, bears no particular 

relationship to the period between September 25 and October 25, 

1978. The contested route check was scheduled for January 1978. 

See n.l, supra. The fact, as Mr. Staerkel put it to the district 

court, that Mr. Staerkel "had finally had enough," R. Vol. I, tab 

37 at 4, on October 25, 1978, is not a sufficient triggering event 

to be given legal cognizance. 

-7-

Appellate Case: 86-2844 Document: 01019974285 Date Filed: 10/06/1989 Page: 7 
Although we reach our conclusion on a basis slightly 

different than that employed by the district court, we nevertheless view the district court's conclusion that the complaint was 

untimely as the correct one. Under the applicable standards of 

review, it is apparent that there is no genuine issue of material 

fact on this dispositive point. 

We have considered all of the arguments presented, addressing 

those we deemed necessary. The judgment of the district court is 

AFFIRMED. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Stephen H. Anderson 

Circuit Judge 

-8-

Appellate Case: 86-2844 Document: 01019974285 Date Filed: 10/06/1989 Page: 8