Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-03004/USCOURTS-ca10-92-03004-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 

---

FIL . . .J 

United States COl, n; of Appeali 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Ci~•~uit 

RUTH M. WOOD, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

ANTHONY M. FRANK, 

Postmaster General, 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

United States Postal Service, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

FEBO 3 1993 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No . 92-3004 

(D .C. No. 89-4017-R) 

(D. Kansas) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before SEYMOUR, MOORE, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. 

Ruth M. Wood, a United States Postal Service employee, filed 

this lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et .§.filL.. (Title VII), 

alleging employment discrimination on the basis of sex. Mrs . Wood 

asserts that defendant violated Title VII when her hours as a 

part-time flexible mail carrier at the Valley Falls post office 

were reduced upon her return from maternity leave. After a trial 

to the bench, the court ruled in favor of defendant . Mrs. Woods 

appeals and we affirm. 

*This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

be cited, or used by any court within t he Tenth Circuit, except 

f o r purpo s e s o f e stablishing the doctrines of the l a w of the cas e , 

res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 92-3004 Document: 010110165559 Date Filed: 02/03/1993 Page: 1 
The record reveals that before Mrs. Woods took maternity 

leave, she was a part-time flexible mail carrier who worked five 

days a week. The other part-time flexible mail carrier in the 

Valley Falls post office, Carl Ellerman, worked one day a week and 

substituted for Mrs. Woods when she took sick or annual leave. 

This situation was the result of an arrangement worked out by Mrs . 

Wo o ds' predecessor, who had originally been a full-time carrier, 

Mr. Ellerman's predecessor, who had only wanted to work a few 

hours a week, and the then-local postmaster Daryl Ford. The 

arrangement continued after Mr. Ford hired Mrs . Woods and Mr. 

Ellerman. 

Mr. Ford retired and was replaced as postmaster by Mr. Lynn 

Saathoff, who began his duties while Mrs. Woods was on maternity 

leave. Upon her return to work, Mr . Saathoff decided to equalize 

the hours between Mrs. Woods and Mr. Ellerman and accordingly 

scheduled them each to work three days a week. Mrs. Woods 

remained a part-time flexible employee at the same hourly rate and 

with the same benefits, although she now worked fewer hours at the 

Valley Falls office. 

It is undisputed that a local postmaster is authorized to 

divide the hours of part-time flexible employees either equally or 

unequally, depending on the particular circumstances. Mr. 

Saathoff testified that he decided to equalize the hours between 

Mrs . Woods and Mr. Ellerman because other post offices where he 

had worked operated that way, other postal officials to whom he 

had spoken thought it was a preferable arrangement, and he 

-2 -

Appellate Case: 92-3004 Document: 010110165559 Date Filed: 02/03/1993 Page: 2 
believed it was fair. Moreover, Mr. Ellerman, unlike his 

predecessor, wanted to work more hours a week . 

The district court ruled that Mrs. Woods established a prima 

facie case of discrimination under the three-part analysis set out 

in McDonnell Douglas Corp . v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973 } . We 

agree. Under Title VII, the definition of discrimination on the 

b a sis of sex includes discrimination "because of or on the basis 

of pregnancy, child birth, or related medical conditions." 42 

U.S.C. § 2000e (k}. Even though Mrs. Woods' seniority and rate o f 

pay remained unchanged, the reduction in her hours following her 

return from maternity leave raises an inference that this 

reduction was because of her pregnancy. See Timus v. Secretary o f 

Labor, 782 F.Supp. 122, 124 (D. D.C. 1991}. 

The district court further determined, however, that 

defendant rebutted this prima facie showing with legitimate 

nondiscriminatory reasons, and that Mrs. Woods failed to prove 

that these reasons were merely a pretext for illegal 

discrimination. This is a factual determination, United States 

Postal Serv. Bd . of Governors v. Aikens, 460 U. S . 711, 716 (1983 } , 

which we must review under the clearly erroneous standard, 

E.E.O.C. v. Ackerman, Hood & MacOueen. Inc., 956 F.2d 944, 946 

(10th Cir. 1992}. We have carefully examined the record in this 

case, and we are not left with a definite and firm conviction that 

the district court erred in its resolution of disputed facts. 

Assessing credibility, which was a key issue here, is a function 

particularly committed to the fact finder. 

-3-

Appellate Case: 92-3004 Document: 010110165559 Date Filed: 02/03/1993 Page: 3 
Accordingly, the judgment is AFFIRMED. 

-4-

Entered for the Court 

Stephanie K. Seymour 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 92-3004 Document: 010110165559 Date Filed: 02/03/1993 Page: 4