Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-00250/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-00250-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Megan J. Brennan
Defendant
Phyu Castillo
Plaintiff
May Thin Zar
Plaintiff

Document Text:

Case 3:19-cv-00250-MMC Document 48 Filed 11/08/19 Page 1 of 39
Case 3:19-cv-00250-MMC Document 48 Filed 11/08/19 Page 2 of 39
Case 3:19-cv-00250-MMC Document 48 Filed 11/08/19 Page 3 of 39
Case 3:19-cv-00250-MMC Document 48 Filed 11/08/19 Page 4 of 39
Case 3:19-cv-00250-MMC Document 48 Filed 11/08/19 Page 5 of 39
Case 3:19-cv-00250-MMC Document 48 Filed 11/08/19 Page 6 of 39
Case 3:19-cv-00250-MMC Document 48 Filed 11/08/19 Page 7 of 39
November 8, 2019

Case 3:19-cv-00250-MMC Document 48 Filed 11/08/19 Page 8 of 39
Exhibit A

Case 3:19-cv-00250-MMC Document 48 Filed 11/08/19 Page 9 of 39
EXHIBIT A

Case 3:19-cv-00250-MMC Document 48 Filed 11/08/19 Page 10 of 39
EXHIBIT A

Case 3:19-cv-00250-MMC Document 48 Filed 11/08/19 Page 11 of 39
Exhibit B

Case 3:19-cv-00250-MMC Document 48 Filed 11/08/19 Page 12 of 39
EXHIBIT B

Case 3:19-cv-00250-MMC Document 48 Filed 11/08/19 Page 13 of 39
PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE

RELIEF AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Julia Parish (SBN 279065)

E-Mail: jparish@legalaidatwork.org

Katherine Wutchiett (SBN 308240)

E-Mail: kwutchiett@legalaidatwork.org

LEGAL AID AT WORK

180 Montgomery Street, Suite 600

San Francisco, CA 94104

Tel: (415) 864-8848

Fax: (415) 593-0096

Wendy E. Musell (SBN 203507)

E-Mail: wmusell@stewartandmusell.com

STEWART & MUSELL, LLP

2200 Powell St., Ste. 440

Emeryville, CA 94608

Tel: (415) 593-0083

Fax: (415) 520-0920

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

May Thin Zar

Phyu Castillo

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MAY THIN ZAR and PHYU CASTILLO,

Plaintiffs,

v.

MEGAN J. BRENNAN, POSTMASTER 

GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES 

POSTAL SERVICE,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 19-cv-250

PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT FOR 

DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY 

AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 

1. Discrimination and Harassment

based on sex – Title VII

(42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq.);

2. Retaliation – Title VII

42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq.);

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

&DVH1RFY

Case 3:19-cv-00250-TSH Document 1 Filed 01/14/19 Page 1 of 10

EXHIBIT B

Case 3:19-cv-00250-MMC Document 48 Filed 11/08/19 Page 14 of 39
1 Case No. 19-cv-250 

PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE

RELIEF AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Plaintiffs May Thin Zar and Phyu Castillo allege as follows:

INTRODUCTION

1. Plaintiffs May Thin Zar and Phyu Castillo (“Plaintiffs” or “Ms. Thin Zar” and

“Ms. Castillo”), are employees of the United States Postal Service (“Defendant” or “U.S.P.S”) in

Daly City, California. They bring this Title VII action for sexual harassment and sex 

discrimination perpetrated by their supervisor and co-employee, Ronald Caluag. Mr. Caluag’s

harassing conduct included restraining Plaintiffs against their will; engaging in unwelcomed 

offensive touching, grabbing, and kissing; and making unwelcomed lewd, sexual, and aggressive 

comments. This sexually harassing conduct was both severe and pervasive and created a hostile 

work environment for Plaintiffs. Although aware of Mr. Caluag’s conduct, the U.S.P.S failed to 

adequately protect Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs also bring a claim for retaliation.

2. Plaintiffs seek an injunction that prohibits the U.S.P.S. from assigning Mr. Caluag

to any facility at which the Plaintiffs are working and that requires the U.S.P.S. to take all steps 

necessary to protect Plaintiffs and other female employees from sexual harassment and 

discrimination by Mr. Caluag. Plaintiffs also seek an award of compensatory damages for pain 

and suffering, reasonable attorneys’ fees, and costs. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

3. This court has jurisdiction over the subject matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331,

1343(a)(4). This action arises under federal law: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 

U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq..

4. Venue is proper in the Northern District of California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

1391(e), because the unlawful practices alleged in this complaint occurred in the Northern 

District of California. 

INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT

5. Assignment of this action to the San Francisco Division of this Court is proper

pursuant to Local Rule 3-2(c) and (d) because the events giving rise to this action occurred in 

San Mateo County, California.

Case 3:19-cv-00250-TSH Document 1 Filed 01/14/19 Page 2 of 10

EXHIBIT B

Case 3:19-cv-00250-MMC Document 48 Filed 11/08/19 Page 15 of 39
2 Case No. 19-cv-250

PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE

RELIEF AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

PARTIES

6. Plaintiff May Thin Zar is, and at all relevant times was, a resident of the Northern

District of California and employed by Defendant U.S.P.S. at its Post Office in Daly City.

7. Plaintiff Phyu Castillo is, and at all relevant times was, a resident of the Northern

District of California and employed by Defendant U.S.P.S. at its Post Office in Daly City.

8. Defendant Megan J. Brennan is Postmaster General of the U.S.P.S. and is therefore

head of the relevant executive agency. Accordingly, Ms. Brennan is named as defendant in this 

action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2000e-16(c). Defendant is sued in her official capacity only.

EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES

9. Plaintiff May Thin Zar filed an informal EEO complaint on December 8, 2017,

followed by a formal EEO complaint on approximately March 20, 2018. In mid-April, Ms. Thin Zar 

responded to the Acceptance for Investigation, requesting that the EEO investigate all complaints 

alleged in her complaint. The EEO investigated and issued its final agency decision on November 

13, 2018.

10. Plaintiff Phyu Castillo filed an informal EEO complaint on approximately January 9,

2018, which she amended on or about February 28, 2018, followed by a formal EEO complaint on 

approximately April 4, 2018. The EEO investigated and issued its final agency decision on October 

18, 2018.

11. Plaintiffs have fully exhausted their administrative remedies and are entitled to

file in the district court.

FACTS

May Thin Zar

12. Ms. Thin Zar is female. She began working for the U.S.P.S. at its Daly City location

in September 2016 and continues to be employed there. Her primary job duties include preparing 

and delivering mail.

13. Soon after beginning her employment, Ms. Thin Zar noticed that Mr. Caluag

watched her and tried to stay in close proximity to her. Shortly thereafter, almost every shift that he 

supervised Ms. Thin Zar, approximately once weekly, Mr. Caluag started telling her that he liked

Case 3:19-cv-00250-TSH Document 1 Filed 01/14/19 Page 3 of 10

EXHIBIT B

Case 3:19-cv-00250-MMC Document 48 Filed 11/08/19 Page 16 of 39
3 Case No. 19-cv-250

PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE

RELIEF AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

and loved her and wanted to go on a date with her. Ms. Thin Zar would tell Mr. Caluag that she was 

married, that she was not interested in him, and that she did not want a relationship with him. Ms. 

Thin Zar worried about being alone with Mr. Caluag and asked a coworker to stay with her at the 

end of their shift. On at least one occasion, Mr. Caluag asked the coworker to leave, so that he could 

drive Ms. Thin Zar home alone.

14. In early to mid-2017, the coworker that stayed with Ms. Thin Zar transferred to

another office. Mr. Caluag began touching, sniffing, smelling, and kissing Ms. Thin Zar’s hair and 

attempting to kiss her cheek during almost every shift that he supervised her. This was frightening 

and offensive to Ms. Thin Zar. Because of Mr. Caluag’s conduct, Ms. Thin Zar asked other 

coworkers to wait for her at the end of their shift and leave with her. She told some of these 

coworkers that the reason for her request was that she did not want to be alone with Mr. Caluag,

because he would try to touch or kiss her.

15. In around June 2017, Mr. Caluag asked Ms. Thin Zar to help him with a task in a

private office. Because Mr. Caluag was Ms. Thin Zar’s supervisor, she said yes. Once they were 

inside the office, he closed the door, restrained her, and kissed her. Ms. Thin Zar was terrified. She

turned her head so that he could only kiss her cheek, yelled, struggled to get away, broke free, and 

ran out of the room.

16. Mr. Caluag started asking Ms. Thin Zar to go into private offices with him almost

every shift that he supervised her, approximately once weekly. On one occasion, soon after the June 

attack, Mr. Caluag grabbed Ms. Thin Zar’s wrist and tried to drag her back into a private office. Ms. 

Thin Zar yelled and struggled free, but injured her wrist in the process.

17. On or about October 29, 2017, Mr. Caluag waited for Ms. Thin Zar near the exit at

the end of her shift. Ms. Thin Zar told Mr. Caluag that she wanted to go home, but Mr. Caluag came 

toward Ms. Thin Zar and grabbed her, wrapping his arms around her, kissing her aggressively with 

his tongue, causing her to fall down, and then falling on top of her. Through the entire incident, Ms. 

Thin Zar struggled to get away. Eventually, she escaped and left. Ms. Thin Zar reported this 

incident to her supervisor on or about the next day. She was afraid for her job, but believed that if 

Case 3:19-cv-00250-TSH Document 1 Filed 01/14/19 Page 4 of 10

EXHIBIT B

Case 3:19-cv-00250-MMC Document 48 Filed 11/08/19 Page 17 of 39
4 Case No. 19-cv-250

PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE

RELIEF AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

she did not do something, the sexual attacks against her would continue to escalate and Mr. Caluag 

would rape her.

18. After Ms. Thin Zar reported what had happened and her fear that Mr. Caluag would 

attack her, she continued to be required to work with him. Mr. Caluag would glare at her when he 

saw her around the office and laugh. This was frightening to Ms. Thin Zar and demonstrated that 

Mr. Caluag did not take her complaints seriously and that he was untouchable. Ms. Thin Zar is 

informed and believes that Mr. Caluag told her coworkers that she would be fired for reporting him.

During the investigation of her complaint, management warned Ms. Thin Zar to “be careful”

because Mr. Caluag had complained about her. Ms. Thin Zar continued working, afraid both for her 

safety and her job.

19. The trauma of the attacks and subsequent fear for her safety have caused Ms. Thin 

Zar to experience severe distress, for which she has sought medical care. Ms. Thin Zar felt 

humiliated and degraded by the sexual attacks and worries how they will impact how she is viewed 

in her community. Ms. Thin Zar continues to fear that Mr. Caluag will attack her while she is 

delivering the mail.

Phyu Castillo

20. Ms. Castillo began working for the U.S.P.S. around 2001. By 2003, she transferred 

to the Daly City Post Office. Her primary job duties include preparing and delivering mail.

21. At the Daly City Post Office, Ms. Castillo worked with Mr. Caluag. When Mr. 

Caluag and Ms. Castillo were alone together, Mr. Caluag would leer at Ms. Castillo’s breasts and 

make salacious comments like, “mmmmm,” or “I want some of this,” on about a weekly basis.

22. This continued through 2009, when Mr. Caluag’s behavior escalated. He began 

touching Ms. Castillo and suggesting that they perform sexual acts together. Often, he would grab 

her hand and try to drag her into a bathroom or private space.

23. In or around 2016, Mr. Caluag became a supervisor. He became yet more 

aggressive, frequently commenting on Ms. Castillo’s breasts and asking her for kisses.

24. In or around September 2017, Ms. Castillo approached Mr. Caluag to ask him about 

a union matter. In response, Mr. Caluag suggested that they go downstairs to smoke. When Ms. 

Case 3:19-cv-00250-TSH Document 1 Filed 01/14/19 Page 5 of 10

EXHIBIT B

Case 3:19-cv-00250-MMC Document 48 Filed 11/08/19 Page 18 of 39
5 Case No. 19-cv-250

PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE

RELIEF AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Castillo and Mr. Caluag got down the stairs and were isolated, Mr. Caluag grabbed her, pressed his 

erect penis against her body, held her, and tried to kiss her. Ms. Castillo struggled free, repeating,

“No!” and escaped to the parking lot. At the time, Ms. Castillo was afraid to report Mr. Caluag, 

because he was a supervisor and had held positions of power at work and in the union. Mr. Caluag’s 

abusive sexual behavior was open and notorious in the workplace for years and it appeared that 

U.S.P.S. took no effective actions to prevent or end it.

25. In November of 2017, Ms. Castillo learned that Mr. Caluag had assaulted her 

coworker, Ms. Thin Zar. Ms. Castillo was terrified for her own safety and that of her coworkers.

Ms. Castillo reported what had happened to her to the Postmaster and explained that she did not feel 

safe at work.

26. Ms. Castillo continued to be required work shifts which could overlap with Mr. 

Caluag’s. When he saw her, Mr. Caluag glared or stared at Ms. Castillo. Ms. Castillo learned that 

Mr. Caluag had told other U.S.P.S. employees and supervisors that he felt sorry for Ms. Castillo and 

that Ms. Castillo had only reported him to get out of having to work. There appeared to be no 

consequences for this retaliatory conduct. Ms. Castillo felt afraid for her safety and reported Mr. 

Caluag’s statements to the Postmaster Charles Bolton.

27. The trauma of the attacks and subsequent fear for her safety have caused Ms. 

Castillo to experience severe distress, for which she has sought medical care. Ms. Castillo felt 

humiliated and degraded by the attack. Ms. Castillo continues to fear that Mr. Caluag will attack her 

while she is delivering the mail.

28. Upon information and belief, Mr. Caluag has sexually assaulted and harassed other 

female U.S.P.S. employees. Despite multiple women, including Plaintiffs, coming forward at great 

risk to themselves and describing the sexual attacks against them, the U.S.P.S. has refused to take 

prompt or effective action, brushing off the sexual assaults, requiring Plaintiffs to work with Mr. 

Caluag, and refusing to take adequate actions to address the harassment and discrimination against 

Plaintiffs. The U.S.P.S. keeps Mr. Caluag working in positions of actual or perceived authority 

where he has access to women he can exploit and abuse in the workplace. 

Case 3:19-cv-00250-TSH Document 1 Filed 01/14/19 Page 6 of 10

EXHIBIT B

Case 3:19-cv-00250-MMC Document 48 Filed 11/08/19 Page 19 of 39
6 Case No. 19-cv-250

PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE

RELIEF AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Sexual Harassment and Sex Discrimination

(Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e, et. seq.) 

[On Behalf of Both Plaintiffs]

29. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the 

preceding paragraphs as though fully stated here.

30. Title VII prohibits Defendant U.S.P.S. from discriminating against any employee 

on the basis of sex. Discrimination on the basis of sex includes sexual harassment.

31. In perpetrating the above-described acts and omissions, Defendant, its agents, 

servants, and/or employees, engaged in unlawful sexual harassment and discrimination in

violation of Title VII.

32. Defendant, its agents, and employees engaged in targeted harassment against 

Plaintiffs because of their sex. Defendant subjected Plaintiffs to unwelcome sexual comments

and sexual attacks and acts that were terrifying, humiliating, harmful, and degrading. Mr.

Caluag’s sexual harassment caused Plaintiffs pain, stress, and anxiety. Plaintiffs obtained 

medical care for these conditions. The above-mentioned unwelcomed acts were severe or

pervasive and created a hostile work environment for Plaintiffs.

33. Plaintiffs perceived the working environment to be abusive or hostile, which 

caused Plaintiffs sufficient stress and anxiety to require medical care.

34. Because Mr. Caluag acted as Plaintiffs’ supervisor, U.S.P.S. is strictly liable for 

Mr. Caluag’s sexual harassment of Plaintiffs. 

35. Additionally, U.S.P.S. knew or should have known of Mr. Caluag’s sexual 

harassment and the resulting hostile work environment, but nevertheless failed to take prompt 

and effective remedial action. Accordingly, U.S.P.S. is liable for Mr. Caluag’s sexual harassment 

even if he was not acting as a supervisor. Plaintiffs were harmed because of the foregoing

described conduct of Defendant, which was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiffs harm.

36. As a direct and proximate result of the actions alleged herein, Plaintiffs have and 

will suffer damages including, but not limited to pain, suffering, humiliation, shame, anxiety, 

Case 3:19-cv-00250-TSH Document 1 Filed 01/14/19 Page 7 of 10

EXHIBIT B

Case 3:19-cv-00250-MMC Document 48 Filed 11/08/19 Page 20 of 39
7 Case No. 19-cv-250

PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE

RELIEF AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

embarrassment, mortification, hurt feelings, physical harm, and emotional distress, all in an 

amount to be proven at trial.

37. Plaintiffs are entitled to statutory attorneys’ fees and costs, and other appropriate 

relief as determined by this court.

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Retaliation

(Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e, et seq.) 

[On Behalf of Both Plaintiffs]

38. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the 

preceding paragraphs as though fully stated here.

39. Title VII prohibits Defendant from retaliating against any employee because she 

engaged in a protected activity. Resisting and/or complaining of sexual harassment is a protected 

activity under Title VII.

40. Defendant and its agents, servants, and/or employees, engaged in unlawful 

retaliation in violation of Title VII.

41. Plaintiffs engaged in protected activity by resisting and complaining of sexual 

harassment and requesting to be protected from Mr. Caluag.

42. Defendant, its agents, and/or employees retaliated against Plaintiffs on the basis 

of their protected activity, and took material and adverse employment actions against them,

including by creating and permitting a hostile work environment and requiring Plaintiffs to 

continue to work with Mr. Caluag even after they described sexual attacks against them that rise 

to the level of sexual assault and explained their fears of further attacks. U.S.P.S. led Plaintiffs to 

believe that Mr. Caluag was untouchable, and that they would never be able to safely work 

again. Mr. Caluag was permitted to spread gossip after Plaintiffs complained of harassment 

which caused Plaintiff Thin Zar to fear for her job and humiliated Ms. Castillo. Defendant failed 

to take effective remedial action such that the Defendant’s action would deter a

reasonable employee in the same situation from making a complaint.

43. As a direct and proximate result of the actions alleged herein, Plaintiffs have and 

will suffer damages including, but not limited to, pain, suffering, humiliation, shame, anxiety, 

Case 3:19-cv-00250-TSH Document 1 Filed 01/14/19 Page 8 of 10

EXHIBIT B

Case 3:19-cv-00250-MMC Document 48 Filed 11/08/19 Page 21 of 39
8 Case No. 19-cv-250

PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE

RELIEF AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

embarrassment, mortification, hurt feelings, physical harm, and emotional distress, all in an 

amount to be proven at trial.

44. Plaintiffs are entitled to statutory attorneys’ fees and costs, and other appropriate 

relief as determined by this court.

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

45. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the 

preceding paragraphs as though fully stated here.

46. Plaintiffs seek an injunction that prohibits the U.S.P.S. from assigning Mr. Caluag 

to any facility at which Plaintiffs are working, and that requires the U.S.P.S. to take all steps 

necessary to protect Plaintiffs and other female employees from sexual harassment and 

discrimination by Mr. Caluag.

47. Plaintiffs seek effective training that addresses sexual assault, sexual harassment, 

sexual discrimination, and retaliation in the workplace.

48. No previous application for injunctive relief sought herein has been made to this 

Court.

49. If this Court does not grant the injunctive relief sought herein, Plaintiffs will be 

irreparably harmed.

50. No plain, adequate, or complete remedy at law is available to Plaintiffs to redress 

the wrongs addressed herein.

DECLARATORY RELIEF

51. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the 

preceding paragraphs as though fully stated here.

52. An actual controversy has arisen and now exists relating to the rights and duties of 

the parties herein in that Plaintiffs contend that Defendant violated their rights not to be 

subjected to sexual harassment and retaliation. On information and belief, Defendant denies

these allegations. Declaratory relief is therefore necessary and appropriate.

53. Plaintiffs seek a judicial declaration of the rights and duties of the respective 

parties.

Case 3:19-cv-00250-TSH Document 1 Filed 01/14/19 Page 9 of 10

EXHIBIT B

Case 3:19-cv-00250-MMC Document 48 Filed 11/08/19 Page 22 of 39
9 Case No. 19-cv-250

PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE

RELIEF AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

REQUEST FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs prays for relief as follows:

1. For declaratory judgment that the practices complained of in this complaint are 

unlawful and violate Title VII;

2. For injunctive relief, including but not limited to appropriate discipline and 

prevention of Mr. Caluag from working with Plaintiffs at the Daly City USPS office 

and requiring institutional adherence to reasonable sex harassment policies consistent 

with Title VII; 

3. For compensation denied or lost to Plaintiffs by reason of the unlawful acts alleged 

herein, in an amount to be proven at trial;

4. For payment of compensatory damages for Plaintiffs’ emotional pain and suffering, in 

an amount to be proven at trial;

5. For Plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees and costs;

6. For payment of interest at the legal rate on such damages as appropriate, including 

pre- and post- judgment interest; and

7. For any further relief that the Court deems just and proper.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiffs, hereby demand a trial by jury of each and every cause of action so triable.

DATED: January 14, 2019

By: ______________________

Katherine Wutchiett

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

May Thin Zar & Phyu Castillo

LEGAL AID AT WORK

Julia Parish

Katherine Wutchiett

STEWART & MUSELL

Wendy Musell

Case 3:19-cv-00250-TSH Document 1 Filed 01/14/19 Page 10 of 10

EXHIBIT B

Case 3:19-cv-00250-MMC Document 48 Filed 11/08/19 Page 23 of 39
DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT

No. 19-250-MMC 1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

DAVID L. ANDERSON (CABN 149604)

United States Attorney

SARA WINSLOW (DCBN 457643)

Chief, Civil Division

WENDY M. GARBERS (CABN 213208)

Assistant United States Attorney

450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36055

San Francisco, California 94102-3495

Telephone: (415) 436-6475

FAX: (415) 436-7234

wendy.garbers@usdoj.gov

Attorneys for Defendant 

POSTMASTER GENERAL

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

MAY THIN ZAR and PHYU CASTILLO;

Plaintiffs,

v.

MEGAN J. BRENNAN, POSTMASTER 

GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES 

POSTAL SERVICE;

Defendant.

Case No. 19-250-MMC

DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ 

COMPLAINT

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

ANSWER

The Postmaster General hereby responds to Plaintiffs’ Complaint for Damages and Declaratory 

and Injunctive Relief (“Complaint”) as follows:

1. Defendant admits that Plaintiffs are employees of the United States Postal Service

(“USPS”), stationed in Daly City, California. Defendant admits that Plaintiffs purport to bring this 

employment discrimination action under Title VII, but denies that their claims have merit. Except as 

expressly admitted, Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 1.

2. Defendant admits that Plaintiffs seek damages, injunctive relief and attorneys’ fees, but 

denies that any such relief is appropriate. Except as expressly admitted, Defendant denies the 

allegations in Paragraph 2.

Case 3:19-cv-00250-MMC Document 14 Filed 03/18/19 Page 1 of 9

EXHIBIT B

Case 3:19-cv-00250-MMC Document 48 Filed 11/08/19 Page 24 of 39
DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT

No. 19-250-MMC 2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3. Defendant admits that this Court has federal question jurisdiction over this matter.

4. Defendant admits that this matter is properly venued in the Northern District of 

California.

5. Defendants admits that assignment of this action to the San Francisco Division is proper

under Local Rule 3-2(d).

6. Defendant admits that Plaintiff May Thin Zar is employed by the USPS at Daly City. 

Defendant is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the remainder of the allegations in 

Paragraph 6 and, on that basis, denies them.

7. Defendant admits that Plaintiff Phyu Castillo is employed by the USPS at Daly City. 

Defendant is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the remainder of the allegations in 

Paragraph 7 and, on that basis, denies them.

8. Defendant admits that the Postmaster General is the proper defendant in this employment 

action, in her official capacity.

9. Defendant denies that Plaintiff Zar filed an informal EEO complaint on December 8, 

2017. Defendant admits that Plaintiff Zar submitted a formal EEO complaint on approximately March 

20, 2018. Defendant admits that it investigated Plaintiff Zar’s formal EEO complaint and, at her 

request, issued its Final Agency Decision, dated November 13, 2018. Defendant is without sufficient 

knowledge to admit or deny the remainder of the allegations in Paragraph 9 and, on that basis, denies 

them.

10. Defendant denies that Plaintiff Castillo filed an informal EEO complaint on January 9, 

2018. Defendant admits that Plaintiff Castillo submitted a document titled Amended Charge of 

Discrimination, which was dated February 27, 2018. Defendant admits that Plaintiff Castillo submitted 

a formal complaint of discrimination on approximately April 4, 2018. Defendant admits that it 

investigated Plaintiff Castillo’s formal EEO complaint and, at her request, issued its Final Agency 

Decision, dated October 18, 2018.

11. Defendant denies that Plaintiff Castillo has exhausted her administrative remedies related 

to conduct that occurred more than 45 days before she contacted an EEO counselor on or about January 9,

2018, as such contact was untimely.

Case 3:19-cv-00250-MMC Document 14 Filed 03/18/19 Page 2 of 9

EXHIBIT B

Case 3:19-cv-00250-MMC Document 48 Filed 11/08/19 Page 25 of 39
DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT

No. 19-250-MMC 3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

12. Defendant admits the allegations in Paragraph 12.

13. Defendant admits that, beginning in or around March 2017, Mr. Caluag made romantic 

overtures towards Plaintiff Zar—conduct which caused Defendant to issue him a Notice of Removal. 

Defendant denies that Mr. Caluag was a “supervisor” within the meaning of federal law. Defendant is 

without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the remainder of the allegations in Paragraph 13 and, on 

that basis, denies them.

14. Defendant admits that, beginning in or around March 2017, Mr. Caluag made romantic 

overtures towards Plaintiff Zar—conduct which caused Defendant to issue him a Notice of Removal. 

Defendant denies that Mr. Caluag was a “supervisor” within the meaning of federal law. Defendant is 

without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the remainder of the allegations in Paragraph 14 and, on 

that basis, denies them.

15. Defendant admits that sometime between April and June 2017, Mr. Caluag called Plaintiff 

Zar into an office, wherein he attempted to hug and kiss her without her consent—an offense for which 

Defendant issued him a Notice of Removal. Defendant denies that Mr. Caluag was a “supervisor” within the 

meaning of federal law. Defendant is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the remainder of the 

allegations in Paragraph 15 and, on that basis, denies them.

16. Defendant admits that in or around the beginning of October 2017, Mr. Caluag grabbed 

Plaintiff Zar’s wrist to stop her from leaving his presence after she told him not to touch her—an offense for 

which Defendant issued him a Notice of Removal. Defendant denies that Mr. Caluag was a “supervisor” 

within the meaning of federal law. Defendant is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the 

remainder of the allegations in Paragraph 16 and, on that basis, denies them.

17. Defendant admits that on or about October 29, 2017, Mr. Caluag attempted to kiss, or did 

kiss, Plaintiff Zar without her consent—an offense for which Defendant issued him a Notice of Removal.

Defendant denies that Mr. Caluag was a “supervisor” within the meaning of federal law. Defendant denies 

that Plaintiff Zar reported this incident to her supervisor the next day. Defendant is without sufficient 

knowledge to admit or deny the remainder of the allegations in Paragraph 17 and, on that basis, denies 

them.

18. Defendant admits that, immediately following her report, Plaintiff Zar and Mr. Caluag 

Case 3:19-cv-00250-MMC Document 14 Filed 03/18/19 Page 3 of 9

EXHIBIT B

Case 3:19-cv-00250-MMC Document 48 Filed 11/08/19 Page 26 of 39
DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT

No. 19-250-MMC 4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

remained employed with the USPS at the same facility. However, Defendant immediately instruct Mr. 

Caluag not to have contact with Plaintiff Zar. Defendant denies that Mr. Caluag was “untouchable”—as 

soon as Plaintiff Zar complained about him, the USPS investigated, issued a Noticed of Removal, and 

permanently transferred him to another facility. Defendant is without sufficient knowledge to admit or 

deny the remainder of the allegations in Paragraph 18 and, on that basis, denies them.

19. Defendant denies that there is any evidence to suggest that Mr. Caluag will attack 

Plaintiff Zar while she is delivering mail and notes that he has been transferred to a different facility and 

that the USPS has instructed him to obey the restraining order Plaintiff Zar obtained from San Mateo 

Superior Court on pain of corrective action, up to and including his removal from employment. 

Defendant is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the remainder of the allegations in 

Paragraph 19 and, on that basis, denies them. 

20. Defendant admits the allegations in Paragraph 20.

21. Defendant admits that Mr. Caluag was also employed at the Daly City Post Office.

Defendant is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the remainder of the allegations in 

Paragraph 21 and, on that basis, denies them. 

22. Defendant is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations in Paragraph 

22 and, on that basis, denies them. 

23. Defendant denies that Mr. Caluag was a “supervisor” within the meaning of federal law. 

Defendant is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the remainder of the allegations in 

Paragraph 23 and, on that basis, denies them. 

24. Defendant denies that Mr. Caluag was a “supervisor” within the meaning of federal law. 

Defendant further denies that anyone can be both a “supervisor” and hold a position of power within a 

collective bargaining unit, as “supervisors” cannot even be members of a bargaining unit under the National 

Labor Relations Act. Defendant denies that Mr. Caluag engaged in “abusive sexual behavior” that was 

“open and notorious in the workplace for years.” Defendant denies that the USPS failed to take effective 

actions to prevent or end any unlawful conduct of which it was aware. Defendant admits that, in September 

2017, Mr. Caluag grabbed Plaintiff Castillo by the shoulders, pulled her close to him, and attempted to kiss 

her on the mouth without her consent—an offense for which Defendant issued him a Notice of Removal. 

Case 3:19-cv-00250-MMC Document 14 Filed 03/18/19 Page 4 of 9

EXHIBIT B

Case 3:19-cv-00250-MMC Document 48 Filed 11/08/19 Page 27 of 39
DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT

No. 19-250-MMC 5

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Defendant is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the remainder of the allegations in 

Paragraph 24 and, on that basis, denies them. 

25. Defendant admits that, at the end of November 2017, while the USPS was investigating 

Plaintiff Zar’s complaints, Plaintiff Castillo submitted a written statement accusing Mr. Caluag of sexual 

misconduct. Defendant is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the remainder of the 

allegations in Paragraph 25 and, on that basis, denies them. 

26. Defendant admits that after Plaintiff Castillo complained about Mr. Caluag, they both 

continued to be employed by the USPS and to work in the Daly City Post Office. Defendant admits that 

Plaintiff Castillo informed Officer-in-Charge Charles Bolton that she believed Mr. Caluag was gossiping 

about the complaints against him and that Mr. Caluag looked at her. Defendant denies that the USPS 

failed to take action based on these allegations. After learning of the complaints, the USPS investigated, 

issued a Noticed of Removal, and permanently transferred Mr. Caluag to another facility. Defendant is 

without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the remainder of the allegations in Paragraph 26 and, on 

that basis, denies them. 

27. Defendant denies that there is any evidence to suggest that Mr. Caluag will attack 

Plaintiff Castillo while she is delivering mail and notes that he has been transferred to a different facility 

and that the USPS has instructed him to obey the restraining order Plaintiff Castillo obtained from San 

Mateo Superior Court on pain of corrective action, up to and including his removal from employment. 

Defendant is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the remainder of the allegations in 

Paragraph 27 and, on that basis, denies them. 

28. Defendant lacks any information to suggest that Mr. Caluag has sexually assaulted or 

harassed other employees and, on that basis, denies said allegation. Defendant denies that the USPS 

failed to take prompt or effective action in response to any complaints it received regarding Mr. Caluag. 

Defendant denies that the USPS “brushed off the sexual assaults.” Defendant admits that Mr. Caluag 

continued to be employed at the Daly City Post Office until January 2018, but denies that either Plaintiff 

was required to work with him after her complaints. Indeed, the USPS instructed Mr. Caluag to stay 

away from Plaintiffs. Defendant denies that the USPS has refused to take adequate actions to address 

harassment and discrimination against either Plaintiff, or any other employee. Defendant denies that 

Case 3:19-cv-00250-MMC Document 14 Filed 03/18/19 Page 5 of 9

EXHIBIT B

Case 3:19-cv-00250-MMC Document 48 Filed 11/08/19 Page 28 of 39
DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT

No. 19-250-MMC 6

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Mr. Caluag currently works in positions of actual or perceived authority. Defendant denies that Mr. 

Caluag was ever a “supervisor” within the meaning of federal law. Except as expressly admitted, Defendant 

denies the allegations in Paragraph 28. 

29. Defendant incorporates by reference its response to each allegation set forth above as if 

fully set forth herein. 

30. Paragraph 30 consists solely of legal conclusions regarding the requirements of Title VII, 

to which no response is required.

31. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 31.

32. Defendant admits that Mr. Caluag’s behavior, as cited in its Notice of Removal, was 

contrary to Defendant’s policies and requirements for employees. Defendant lacks sufficient 

information to admit or deny the allegations regarding Plaintiffs’ state of mind and medical care and, on 

that basis, denies them. Defendant otherwise denies the allegations in Paragraph 32.

33. Defendant is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations in Paragraph 

33 and, on that basis, denies them. 

34. Defendant admits that Mr. Caluag had limited power to direct Plaintiffs’ work tasks one 

day a week at certain times relevant to their Complaint. However, Defendant denies that Mr. Caluag 

was ever a “supervisor” within the meaning of federal law. Except as expressly admitted, Defendant 

denies the allegations in Paragraph 34. 

35. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 35.

36. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 36.

37. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 37.

38. Defendant incorporates by reference its response to each allegation set forth above as if 

fully set forth herein. 

39. Paragraph 39 consists solely of legal conclusions regarding the requirements of Title VII, 

to which no response is required. 

40. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 40.

41. Defendant admits that opposing discrimination on the basis sex and complaining about it 

are protected activities under Title VII. Except as expressly admitted, Defendant denies the allegations 

Case 3:19-cv-00250-MMC Document 14 Filed 03/18/19 Page 6 of 9

EXHIBIT B

Case 3:19-cv-00250-MMC Document 48 Filed 11/08/19 Page 29 of 39
DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT

No. 19-250-MMC 7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

in Paragraph 41. 

42. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 42. 

43. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 43. 

44. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 44. 

45. Defendant incorporates by reference its response to each allegation set forth above as if 

fully set forth herein. 

46. Defendant admits that Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, but denies that any such relief is 

appropriate. Except as expressly admitted, Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 46. 

47. Defendant admits that Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, but deny that any such relief is 

appropriate. Except as expressly admitted, Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 47.

48. Defendant is without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny the allegations in Paragraph 

48 and, on that basis, denies them. 

49. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 49. 

50. Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 50. 

51. Defendant incorporates by reference its response to each allegation set forth above as if 

fully set forth herein. 

52. Defendant admits that Plaintiffs seek declaratory relief, but denies that any such relief is 

appropriate. Except as expressly admitted, Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 52. 

53. Defendant admits that Plaintiffs seek declaratory relief, but denies that any such relief is 

appropriate. Except as expressly admitted, Defendant denies the allegations in Paragraph 53.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Prompt Corrective Action)

1. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred, in whole or in part, because Defendant exercised reasonable 

care to prevent and correct promptly any allegedly discriminatory, harassing, or retaliatory behavior.

SECONDAFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Effective Administrative Process—Ellerth/Faragher)

2. Defendant maintains and effective administrative process for preventing and correcting 

Case 3:19-cv-00250-MMC Document 14 Filed 03/18/19 Page 7 of 9

EXHIBIT B

Case 3:19-cv-00250-MMC Document 48 Filed 11/08/19 Page 30 of 39
DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT

No. 19-250-MMC 8

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

any improper, retaliatory, discriminatory and harassing conduct and Plaintiffs unreasonably failed to 

avail themselves of these opportunities to protect themselves from any allegedly improper conduct.

THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Failure to Mitigate)

3. To the extent that Plaintiffs have failed to mitigate their damages, their recovery is 

limited accordingly.

FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies)

4. To the extent that Plaintiffs allege or assert matters not contained in a legally sufficient and 

timely administrative claim, such claims are barred by the exhaustion of administrative remedies doctrine. 

For example, Plaintiff Castillo’s claims based on conduct that occurred more than 45 days before she 

contacted an EEO counselor on or about January 9, 2018, are barred. 

FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Mixed Motive)

5. To the extent that Plaintiffs demonstrates that a discriminatory or retaliatory motive 

played a part in the challenged actions, which Defendant denies, Defendant asserts that the same actions 

would have been taken absent the discriminatory or retaliatory motive.

SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(Lack of Agency)

6. To the extent that Plaintiffs demonstrates that employees of Defendant committed 

unlawful acts, as alleged in the Complaint, which Defendant does not concede, Defendant asserts that 

such unlawful acts were committed outside the scope of employment and not by agents of Defendant.

The Postmaster General reserves the right to assert additional affirmative defenses as discovery 

develops and warrants.

Case 3:19-cv-00250-MMC Document 14 Filed 03/18/19 Page 8 of 9

EXHIBIT B

Case 3:19-cv-00250-MMC Document 48 Filed 11/08/19 Page 31 of 39
DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT

No. 19-250-MMC 9

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, the Postmaster General prays that: 

1. Plaintiffs takes nothing by their Complaint; 

2. The Postmaster General has judgment against Plaintiffs;

3. The Postmaster General be awarded her costs of suit; and 

4. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem proper.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Defendant hereby demands trial by jury.

DATED: March 18, 2019 Respectfully submitted,

DAVID L. ANDERSON

United States Attorney

/s/ Wendy M. Garbers

WENDY M. GARBERS

Assistant United States Attorney

Attorney for Defendant

Case 3:19-cv-00250-MMC Document 14 Filed 03/18/19 Page 9 of 9

EXHIBIT B

Case 3:19-cv-00250-MMC Document 48 Filed 11/08/19 Page 32 of 39
EXHIBIT B

Case 3:19-cv-00250-MMC Document 48 Filed 11/08/19 Page 33 of 39
EXHIBIT B

Case 3:19-cv-00250-MMC Document 48 Filed 11/08/19 Page 34 of 39
Exhibit C

Case 3:19-cv-00250-MMC Document 48 Filed 11/08/19 Page 35 of 39
'LVFULPLQDWLRQLV,OOHJDO

 <RXKDYHWKHULJKWQRWWREHGLVFULPLQDWHGDJDLQVWWUHDWHG

ZRUVHRUKDUDVVHGEHFDXVHRI\RXUUDFHFRORUUHOLJLRQ

QDWLRQDORULJLQDJHFXUUHQWRUSDVWGLVDELOLW\VWDWXVJHQHWLF

LQIRUPDWLRQRUVH[LQFOXGLQJSUHJQDQF\VH[XDO

RULHQWDWLRQJHQGHULGHQWLW\RUWUDQVJHQGHUVWDWXV

 7RPDNHDFRPSODLQWDERXWKDUDVVPHQWRUGLVFULPLQDWLRQ

\RXPXVWFRQWDFWWKH3RVWDO6HUYLFH¶V(TXDO(PSOR\PHQW

2SSRUWXQLW\((22IILFHZLWKLQGD\V

 <RXFDQPDNHDFRPSODLQWRQOLQHDWKWWSVHILOHXVSVFRP

5HWDOLDWLRQLV,OOHJDO

<RXKDYHWKHULJKWWRRSSRVHGLVFULPLQDWLRQDQGSDUWLFLSDWHLQDQWL

GLVFULPLQDWLRQSURFHVVHVIUHHIURPUHWDOLDWLRQ7RUHSRUW

UHWDOLDWLRQ\RXPXVWFRQWDFWWKH((22IILFHZLWKLQGD\VDW

KWWSVHILOHXVSVFRP

)RULPPHGLDWHKHOSZLWKKDUDVVPHQWGLVFULPLQDWLRQRU

UHWDOLDWLRQFRQWDFW\RXUVXSHUYLVRUSRVWPDVWHU+XPDQ

5HVRXUFHVRUWKH((22IILFH

)RUPRUHLQIRUPDWLRQVHH6HFWLRQRIWKH(PSOR\HH	

/DERU5HODWLRQV0DQXDODQG3RVWHU

EXHIBIT C

Case 3:19-cv-00250-MMC Document 48 Filed 11/08/19 Page 36 of 39
Exhibit D

Case 3:19-cv-00250-MMC Document 48 Filed 11/08/19 Page 37 of 39
STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL WITH PREUDICE

No. 19-250-MMC 1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

DAVID L. ANDERSON (CABN 149604)

United States Attorney

SARA WINSLOW (DCBN 457643)

Chief, Civil Division

WENDY M. GARBERS (CABN 213208)

Assistant United States Attorney

EMMET P. ONG (NYBN 4581369)

Assistant United States Attorney

450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36055

San Francisco, California 94102-3495

Telephone: (415) 436-6475

FAX: (415) 436-7234

wendy.garbers@usdoj.gov

Attorneys for Defendant 

POSTMASTER GENERAL

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

MAY THIN ZAR and PHYU CASTILLO,

Plaintiffs,

v.

MEGAN J. BRENNAN, POSTMASTER 

GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES 

POSTAL SERVICE,

Defendant.

Case No. 19-250-MMC

STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL WITH 

PREJUDICE PURSUANT TO FRCP 

41(a)(1)(A)(ii)

It is hereby stipulated by and between the undersigned Plaintiffs MAY THIN ZAR and PHYU 

CASTILLO and Defendant POSTMASTER GENERAL, by and through their respective attorneys, as 

follows:

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), Plaintiffs and Defendant hereby 

stipulate to dismiss with prejudice the above-captioned action. Except as expressly set forth in the 

previously-filed Stipulation And Agreement Of Compromise And Settlement And [Proposed] Order,

each party is to bear her own costs and attorneys’ fees.

Case 3:19-cv-00250-MMC Document 48 Filed 11/08/19 Page 38 of 39
STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL WITH PREUDICE

No. 19-250-MMC 2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

SO STIPULATED AND AGREED.

DATED:

Julia Parish

LEGAL AID AT WORK

Counsel for Plaintiffs MAY THIN ZAR and PHYU 

CASTILLO

DAVID L. ANDERSON

United States Attorney

DATED: By: _______________________________

Wendy M. Garbers

Assistant United States Attorney

Attorney for Defendant

Case 3:19-cv-00250-MMC Document 48 Filed 11/08/19 Page 39 of 39