The Hon. D enny Chin, of the United States District Court for the Southern D istrict of * New Y ork, sitting by

desig nation. Th e Cle rk

of the Court is r e sp e c tf

ull y dir e c te d to a me nd

the of fi c ia l c a pti on a s se t f or th ** above. 08 - 06 18 - cv P ort er v. P ot t er 

### UN ITED STA TES C OUR T OF AP PE ALS F OR TH E S EC ON D C IR C U IT SU MM AR

Y O RD ER R ULI NG S BY S UM M ARY O RDER DO NO T H AVE P RECEDE NTI AL E F F ECT . C I TATI O N TO A S UM M ARY O RDER F I LED O N O R AF TER J ANUARY 1, 2007 , I S P E R MI T T ED AND I S G O VERNED BY F EDERAL R U L E O F A P P ELL ATE P RO CEDURE 32. 1 AND THI S CO URT ’ S L O CAL R ULE 32. 1.1 . W H EN CI TI NG A S UM M ARY O RDER I N A DO CUM ENT F I LED W I TH THI S CO URT , A P ARTY MUST CI TE EI TH ER T H E F ED ER A L A P P ENDI X O R AN ELE CTRO NI C DATAB AS E ( W I TH THE NO TATI O N “ SU M M A R Y O RDER ”) . A P A R T Y C I T I N G A S U MMAR Y O RDER M US T S ERVE A CO P Y O F I T ON ANY P ARTY NOT REP RES ENTE D BY COUNSEL . 1 At a stated te rm of the United States Court of A ppeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel 2 Patrick Moy

nihan Courthouse, 500 Pear l Street, in the City of Ne w York, on the 17 day of th 3 Fe bruar

y , two thousand and ten. 4 5 PRES ENT: 6 P E T E R W . H A LL, 7 DEB RA ANN L I VI NGSTON, 8 Circuit Judges , 9 DENNYCHI N, 10 District Judge . * 11

_______________________________________________ 12 13 BRIAN T. PORTER, 14 15 Plaintif f-Appellant , 16 v. No. 08-0618-c v 17 18 JOHNE. POT TE R, Po stm a ste r G e ne ra l, 19 20 Defendant- Appellee . ** 21

______________________________________________ 22 232

1 W I L L I AM D. M I CHAEL , Paul, Weiss, R ifkind, 2 Wharton & G arr ison L L P (Daniel J. Kramer, of 3 counsel ), Ne w York, N Y, for Plainti ff-Appellant . 4 5 J A M ES R. C HO (Ke van Clear y , Var uni Nelson, of 6 counsel ), for Be nton J . Campbell, United States 7 Attorney , Easter n District of Ne w York, B rookly n, 8 NY, for Defendant-Appe llee . 9 10 Appea l from a judg ment of the United States District Court for the Easter

n District of Ne w 11 York (Cog an, J. ). 12 UPON D UE CO NSI DE RA TIO N , i ti s h e r e b y OR D ERED , A D J U D G ED A ND 13 D ECREED that the judg ment of the district cour t be AF F IRM ED IN P AR T and VACATED AND 14 REMAND ED IN P ART for f urther pr ocee dings c onsistent with thi s order . 15 Plaintiff-Appellant Br ian T. Porter (“Porter ”) appea ls f rom a Nove mber 30, 2007 judg ment 16 of the United States District Court f or the Easter

n District of Ne w Y o rk (C o gan, J. ) aw arding 17 summary

judgme nt i n fa v o r of Defe ndant J ohn E. Potter, United States Postmaster Gene ral, on 18 Porter’s c laims of unlawful discr imination and retaliation under Title VI Iof the Civil Rights Act of 19 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. We assume the par ties’ familiarity

with th e fa ct s , proce dural 20 history , and spec ification of the issues f or re view. 21 We r eview a district c ourt’s g rant of summary judgme nt de novo, construing all the evidenc e 22 in the light most favor able to the non- moving pa rty and dra wi n g all rea sonable infe renc es in that 23 party ’s favor. McBride v. BIC Consumer Prods. Mfg. Co. , 583 F.3d 92, 96 ( 2d Cir. 2009). Summary 24 jud g me nt i s a

pp ropri ate if

the re is “ no g e nu ine iss ue a s to any mate ri a l f

a c t and . . . th e mov ant i s 25 ent it le d to ju d g me n t a s a matt e r o f la w . ” F e d . R. Ci v . P. 5 6 ( c ) . We ma y a f f ir m on a ny g round 26 supported by

the re cord, inc luding one not relied on by the District C ourt. Thyroff v. Nationw ide 27 Mut. Ins. Co. , 460 F.3d 400, 405 ( 2d Cir. 2006).3

1 Title VI I reta liation claims are subject to the McD onnell-Douglas burd e n- sh if tin g ana ly sis . 2 Se e Te rry v. A sh crof t , 3 36 F .3 d 1 28 , 1 40 -4 1 ( 2d Cir . 2 00 3) . T he pla int if f t he re fo re mus t f

ir st 3 establish a prima fac ie case of reta liation by producing evidenc e that he en gage d i n protec ted 4 activity , that his employ er w as aw are of the activity , that his e mploy er took materially adver se ac tion 5 a g a ins t hi m, a

nd that a c a us a l conne c tio n e xiste d b e tw e e n th e pr ote c te d a c tiv ity and the a dv e rs e 6 action. Se e Kessl e r v. W estc he ste r Coun ty De

p’ t of So c . S e rv s. , 461 F.3d 199, 205-06 (2d Cir. 2006). 7 I f the plaintiff me ets this init ial burden, the defe ndant then must produce “evide nce of a leg itimate, 8 nonreta liatory rea son for the challeng ed employ ment decision.” Cifra v. Gen. Elec . Co. , 252 F.3d 9 205, 216 (2d Cir. 2001). 10 The de fenda nt need not per suade the court that it was a ctually motivated by

the proff ere d 11 rea sons. I t is sufficient if the de fenda nt’s evidenc e ra ises a g enuine issue of fac t as to 12 whether

it discriminated [or retaliated] ag ainst the plaintiff. To ac complish this, t he 13 defe ndant must clear ly set forth, throug h the introduction of admissible evidenc e, the r easons 14 f

o r th e [c h a ll e n g e d

a c ti o n s ]. 15 Tex. De

p’t of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine , 450 U.S. 248, 254 -5 5 (1981) (citation omitt ed). I f the 16 defe ndant meets this burden of production, the plaintiff, to survive summary judgme nt, must poi nt 17 to evidence sufficie nt to permit the fac tfinder to conclude that the employ er’ s proffe red e x planations 18 are prete x tual. Treglia v. Town of Manlius , 313 F.3d 713, 721 ( 2d Cir. 2002). 19 On appe al, Porter c halleng es the dis t ri ct court’s c onclusions that (1) he f ailed to make out 20 a pr ima fa c ie c a se of re ta liatio n wi th re sp e c t to the e ve nts surr ound ingthe a dmi nis tr a tiv e c omp la int s 21 he filed in 1996, a nd (2) the g overnme nt satisfied its burde n to a rticulate a leg itimate, non-reta liatory 22 justification for the a dverse actions it took ag ainst Porter in late 2003 and early 2004. Wit h respe ct 23 to the 1996 even t s , we fi n d n o err or in the district court’ s conclusion that Porter f ailed to make a 24 prima fa cie c ase of reta liation. Several doc uments in the rec ord indicate that Porter wa s disciplined4

1 b y t h e P ostal Service in De cembe r 1995, s h o rtl y b e f o r e Po rte r

b e g anf il in g th e a dmi n is tr ative 2 complaints that ar e t h e s u b ject of this ac tion. Adverse e mploy ment actions that ar e par t of an 3 “extensive period of prog ressive discipline” that beg ins prio r t o any protec ted ac tivity

on the 4 plaintiff’s part cannot g ive rise to a n infere nce of reta liation suff icient to make out a

prima fa cie c ase. 5 Slattery v. Swiss Reinsurance Am . Corp. , 248 F.3d 87, 95 (2d Cir. 2001) . Moreover, t h e r ec ord 6 supports Defe ndant’s ar gu m ent t hat ea ch adve rse a ction complained of had a le g itimate, non7 reta liatory

ju s ti f ication, including Porter’s f reque nt absenc e and ta

rdiness, Porter’ s behavior at work, 8 and Porter’s r epeated fa ilures to attend re quired “ fitness for duty” examinations. Porter produc ed 9 no evidenc e that sug g est s t h at t h ese justifications were me rely prete x t, and there fore the district 10 court’s g rant of summar y judgme nt in favor of

Def endant on these claims was c orre ct. 11 As to the events of Dec ember 2003 throug h Marc h 2004, the district court de termined that 12 Porter made out a prima fa cie c ase of reta liation with respect to four actions take n by

the Post Office : 13 de nia l of

ho lid ay and ov e rt ime pa

y , the a bo lis hme nt o f P or

te r’ s p os iti on , a

le tte r o f w arn ingse nt t o 14 Porter on January

26, 2004, and Porter’ s fourtee n-day suspe n s ion without pay

beg inning on F ebrua

ry 15 1 1 , 2 0 0 4 . P o rt er a lleg es that these a ctions were taken in re taliation for his having filed an EE O 16 complaint on Dec ember 3, 2003, which related to events taking place between June and September 17 2003, and for filing this lawsuit on Dec ember 18, 2003. The only

actions take n by

the Post Office 18 that Porter raises on appe al that could qualify as mater ially

adver se for

the purposes of

a re taliation 19 claim ar e the de nial of holiday and over time pay (with respe ct only to the Christmas and New Y ear ’s 20 holiday s), the J anuar y 26 letter of war

ning, and the fourte en-da y suspension. See B urlington N . & 21 Sa nta FeRy . Co . v . W hite , 548 U.S. 53, 68 (2006) (discussing“mater ial adver sity ” standa rd). The 22 district court conclude d that the Def endant pr offe red a

leg itimate justi fication for ea ch ac tion, but5

1 its c on c lus ion

wa s n ot b a se d o n a

ny e vid e nc e we c an fin d in the re c or d. Th e do c ume nts re latin g to 2 the se e ve nts a

pp e ar no t to have be e n s ub mitte d to the dis tr ic t c ourt by the g ov e rnme nt, and

the on ly 3 piece of evide nce actually in the record relating to these claims, a “F inal Counseling Interview ”of 4 the Postal Servic e’s EEO Dispute Resolution Specia list dated Marc h 9, 2004, does not explain the 5 basis for the Postal Service ’s ac tions other than in a conc lusory fashion. 6 Be cause we a re una ble t o discern on the rec ord bef ore us whe ther the D efe ndant offe red 7 sufficie nt evidence befor e the District Court to support a legitimate, non-retaliatory justification for 8 its actions taken ag ainst Porter betwe en De cembe r 2003 and Marc h 2004, we VA CATE the district 9 court’s judg ment on Porter’s c laims relating to the denial of holiday pay alleg ed in Porter’ s Marc h 10 24, 2004 EEO complaint, the J anuar y 26, 2004 letter of war

ning, a nd the Fe bruar

y 11, 2004 fourtee n11 da

y su sp e ns ion , an d REMA ND fo r furt

he r pr oc e e din g s. On re mand , th e dis tr ic t c ourt may e le c t to 12 reope n the summary judgme nt rec ord to permit the g overnme nt to s u b m i t t he docume nts the 13 g overnme nt refe renc es on appe al, and then, af t er P o rter is g iven an oppor tunity to respond, may 14 deter

mine, in light of the r ecor d as suppl emented, whether the defendant is entitled to judgment a s 15 a matter

of law. In all other re spects the judg ment of the district cour t is hereby

AFF I RMED. 16 AF F I RME D I N PA RT, VA CA TE D A

ND REM AN DE D I

N PART . Co sts — w he the r t o 17 awa

rd them and the amount — shall abide the de cision of the district cour t on remand. 18 19 20 FOR THE COURT: 21 Catherine O ’Ha g an Wolfe, Clerk 22 23 24 25