2006 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 2-15-2006 

# B urk h ar t v . P o s tm a s t e r Ge ne r al P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 05-2326

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2006 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " B urk h ar t v . P os tm as t e r Ge ne r al " (2006). 2006 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1575. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006/1575NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N O : 0 5-2326

__________________ J UD Y B UR KH AR T, A ppel l ant v. * J O H N E . P O T T E R , POSTM ASTER G ENER AL O F THE UN I TED STATES (*A m en d ed P u rsua n t t o F . R . A . P . 4 3 (c))

________________________________

O n A p p ea l Fro m the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e W e ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C i v. N o. 00- cv- 00983) M a g istra te J u d g e : H o n o ra b le R o b e rt C . M itch e ll

________________________________ Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J anuary11, 2006 Be f o r e : RO TH, REN DELL A ND AM BRO , CI RCU I T J UD GES

( Fi l ed February15, 2006)

_________________ OP I NI ON

_________________ P E R C UR I AM J udyB ur khar tappea l s pr o s e a j udgm entent er ed bythe U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctA t all tim e s in th e D istric t C o u rt, B u rk h a rt w a s re p re se n ted b yc o u n se l. 1 B ur khar tal s o fi l ed s epar at e EE O compl ai nt s chal l engi ng the demot i on and an 2 “ u n a c c e p t a b l e ” p e r f

o r ma n c e r a t i n g f

o rth e mi s u s e o f

th e c r e d i tc a r d . Th e EEO compl ai nt s , B ur khar t ’ s s econd a nd thi r d, w er e di s m i s s ed. Fur t herm or e, B ur khar tfi l ed a four t h E E O compl i antal l egi ng t hatthe Pos t al Ser vi ce r et al i at ed aga i ns therand perpetuat ed a hos t i l e w or k envi r onm entatthe A l l eghenyA r ea O ffi ce. T hatcompl ai nt w as al s o di s m i s s ed. 2 C our tfort he W es t ern D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a fol l ow i ng a j uryver di cti n favorof her f o r me re mp l o y e r , t h e Un i t e d S t a t e s P o s t a l S e r v i c e ( “ P o s t a l S e r v i c e ” ) . W e wi l l a f f i r m. 1 B e c a u se th e f

a c ts a re w e ll k n o w n to th e p a rties , w e w ill n o t d isc u ss th e m in d e tail; ra th e r, w e w ill b ri e f

ly d e s c ri b e th e m o s t s ig n if ic a n t e v e n ts le a d in g to th is a c tio n . B ur khar tbegan w or ki ng fort he Pos t al Ser vi ce i n 1989. I n 1998, s he fi l ed an Equal E m ploym ent O pp ortun i t y(“EE O ”) com plai nt al l eging t hat s he w as di scr i m i nated against on t he bas i s of age and s ex w hen s he w as nots el ect ed t o i nt ervi ew fora pr om ot i on att he Al l e g h e n yAr e a Off

i c e i n Pi t t s b u r g h , Pe n n s y l v a n i a . Dur i n g th e p e n d e n c yo f th i s EEO act i on – w hi ch w as ul t i m at el yfound t o be mer i t l es s – B ur khar tw as demot ed and r eas s i gned t o t he Pi t t s bur gh G ener al M ai l Faci l i t y( “G M F”) on a cha r ge thats he mi s us ed h er g o v ern m en t cred itca rd. B u rkh art ap p ea led to the M eritS y stem s P rotec ti o n B o ard ( “ MS P B ” ) , a n d t h e c a s e s e t t l e d u p o n a g r e e m e n tth a tB u r k h a r tt a k e a p o s i t i o n a tth e G MF

2 a t h e r o ri g in a l s a la ry a n d jo b le v e l. B u rk h a rt re m a in e d a t th e G M F u n til A u g u st 2 0 0 3 , w h e n sh e w a s p lac e d o n f a m ily and medi cal l eave aft ers ubm i t t i ng a l ett erfr om a doct ors t at i ng thatB ur khar tcoul d not return to w o rk u n ti l after L ab o r D ay . B u rkh art, h o w ev er, r ef u sed to return to w o rkT he ca s e w as t r i ed bef or e a j ur yw i t h t he exc ept i on of B ur khart ’ s age di s cr i m i nat i on 3 c l a i m, w hi c h was t r i e d b e fo r e a M a gi s t r a t e J ud ge . Se e 28 U . S. C. § 6 36 ( c ) ; Fe d. R. Ci v. P. 73 ( pr ovi di ng t hata magi s t r at e j udge mayconducta j uryornonj urytr i al upon cons entof the p arti es). T o t he ext entt hatB ur khar tappea l s the part i al gr antof s um m aryj udgm ent , w e fi nd 4 no err or . See D oe v. C ount yof C entr e, 242 F. 3d 437, 446 ( 3d C i r . 2001) ( not i ng thatour (c o n tin u e d ...) 3 f o llo w in g th e h o lid a y , a lle g in g th a t th e re w a s a h o s tile w o rk e n v ir o n m e n t a t th e G M F . T he Pos t al Ser vi ce s entB ur khar tfora fi t nes s - for - dutyexami nat i on and or der ed an i ndepende nti nves t i gat i on of herhos t i l e w or k envi r onm entcl ai m . T he fi ndi ngs – that B u rkh art w as f

itfo r du tyan d that there w as n o h o sti le w o rk e n v ir o n m en t – w ere c o m m u n ica ted to B u rk h a rt. S h e w a s o rd e re d to re tu rn to w o rk . W h e n B u rk h a rt a g a in r efus ed, t he Pos t al Ser vi ce, aft erpr ovi di ng not i ce a nd an oppor tuni t yt o r es pond, t erm i nat ed herempl oym enti n M ay2004. B u rk h a rt f

iled tw o c o m p lain ts in th e D istric t C o u rt, w h ich w e re u lti m a tely co n so li d ated , all eg ing ag e a n d sex d iscri m ination , retali ati o n , an d h o sti le w o rk e n v i r o n me n tu n d e rTi t l e VI I o f t h e Ci v i l Ri g h t s Ac to f 1 9 6 4 ( “ Ti t l e VI I ” ) , 4 2 U. S . C. § 2000e et

s eq. , t he A ge D i s cr i m i nat i on i n E m pl oym entA ct( “A D E A ”) , 29 U . S. C . § 621 et s eq . , and the R ehabi l i t at i on A ctof 1973, 29 U . S. C . § 794( a) . Fol l ow i ng the part i al g ra n t o f th e P o sta l S e rv ice ’s m o tio n f o r su m m a ryju d g m e n t, th e c a se p ro c e e d e d to trial in Pi t t s bur gh, Penns y l vani a. O n M ar ch 21, 2005, a ver di ctw as r eturned i n favorof the Post al Ser vi ce on a l l count s . B ur khartt i m el yappea l ed. She chal l enges var i ous pr e- tr i al 3 and evident i aryrul i ng s. 4( . . . cont i nued) 4 re v iew o f

a n o rd e r g ra n tin g a m o tio n f o r su m m a ryju d g m e n t is p len a ry ). F o r e ss e n tially t he r eas ons pr ovi ded byt he M agi s t r at e J udge, B ur khar tcoul d notpur s ue cl ai m s fr om her s econd a nd t hi r d E E O compl ai nt s conce r ni ng herdemot i on and her“unac cept abl e” per form ance r at i ng fort he mi s us e of the cr edi tcar d. See R epor tand R ecomm endat i on, 6- 12. A fede r al empl oy ee, s uch as B ur khar t , w ho s uffe r s an adve r s e per s onnel act i on and al s o al l eges di s cr i m i nat i on i n vi ol at i on of Ti t l e V I I , pr es ent s a “mi xed ca s e. ” See Va l e n t i n e - J o h n s o n v . Ro c h e , 3 8 6 F . 3 d 8 0 0 , 8 0 5 ( 6 t h Ci r . 2 0 0 4 ) . P u r s u a n tt o 2 9 C. F . R. § 1 61 4. 30 2(b), t he em ploy ee i s afforded tw o o pti on s: she can fi l e ei t her a m i xed case c o mp l a i n twi t h h e ra g e n c y ’ s EE O o f f i c e o ra mi x e d c a s e a p p e a l d i r e c t l yt o th e M S P B, “butnotbot h. ” Sect i on 1614. 302( b) fur t hers t at es that“w hi cheve ri s fi l ed fi r s t[a f or m al admi ni s t r at i ve mi xed ca s e compl ai ntw i t h t he EE O ora mi xed ca s e appe al w i t h t he M SP B] s h a l l b e c o n s i d e r e d a n e l e c t i o n t o p r o c e e d i n th a tf o ru m. ” Con s e q u e n t l y , th e EEO offi ce mustdi s m i s s a compl ai ntw her e the di s cr i m i nat i on cl ai m s have be en r ai s ed i n an appea l t o t he M SPB and “the compl ai nanthas el ect ed t o pur s ue the non- E E O pr oces s . ” 29 C . F. R . § 1614. 107( a) ( 4) . H er e, B ur khar t ’ s cl ai m s conce r ni ng herdemot i on and her “unac cept abl e” pe r form ance r at i ng w er e r ej ect ed i n E E O pr ocee di ngs beca us e theyhad b ee n raised in an ea rl ier-fi led M S P B ac ti o n , w h ich re su lt ed in a s ett lem en t agre em en t. In a d d i t i o n , Burk h a r tc o u l d n o tp u r s u e th e a l l e g a t i o n s o f r e t a l i a t i o n r a i s e d i n h e rf o u r t h EEO co m p lai n t bec au se th eyeith er f ail ed to am o u n t t o “a d v erse em p loym en t acti o n s” o r w ere unt i m el yunder29 C . F. R . § 1614. 105( a) ( 1) ( pr ovi di ng thata fe der al empl oy ee w ho i nt ends t o fi l e an a dm i ni s t r at i ve cha r ge of di s cr i m i nat i on m us tcont actan EE O couns el or “w i t hi n 45 day s of the dat e of the mat t eral l eged t o be di s cr i m i nat ory ”) . See R epor tand R ecomm endat i on, 12- 15. 4 B ur khar tr ai s es s ever al obj ect i ons t o t he M agi s t r at e J udge’ s m anage m entof di s covery , w hi ch w e r evi ew forabus e of di s cr et i on. See G al l as v. Supr eme C our tof P en n sy lvan ia, 2 1 1 F . 3 d 7 6 0 , 7 7 8 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 0 ). “W e w il l no t up set a d istri ct co u rt ’s c o n d u c t o f

d isc o v e ryp ro c e d u re s a b se n t a d e m o n stra tio n th a t th e c o u rt’s a c tio n m a d e it im p o ssible to o b tai n cru cial ev iden ce , an d im p li citin su ch a sh o w ing is pro o f th at m o re d il igen t disco v eryw as im p o ssible.” Id. (qu o tat ion an d cit ati o n o m itted). H ere , B u rkh art al l eges t hatt he M agi s t r at e J udge abus ed hi s di s cr et i on byfai l i ng t o or derthe Pos t al5

S erv ice to a d eq u atelyresp o n d to d isco v eryreq u ests, b yex tend ing the P o stal S erv ice’s dis cov erydead l i ne, and byperm i t t i ng the P ost al S ervi ce t o take dep osi t i on s aft er the close of di s covery . N ow her e, how ever , does B ur khar ti dent i fydi s coveryr eques t s thatw ent unans w er ed orevi dence t hatw as notpr oduced. I n addi t i on, s he fa i l s t o expl ai n how t he ext ens i on of the di s coverydeadl i ne pr ej udi ced he rcas e, ot herthan t o bal dl ys t at e that

“ re c e iv in g sa id d o c u m e n ts s o c lo se to trial p re se n ted a b u rd e n to th e P lain tiff in pr epar at i on fort r i al . ” Fi nal l y , B ur khar t ’ s concl us oryas s ert i on thatthe t aki ng of depos i t i ons aft ert he cl os e of di s covery“undul ypr ej udi ce[ d] pl ai nt i ff” i s an i ns uffi ci ent bas i s upon w hi ch t o i nt er fer e w i t h t he M agi s t r at e J udge’ s rul i ng. See I n r e Fi ne Paper A nt i t rus tL i t i g. , 685 F. 2d 810, 817 ( 3d C i r . 1982) ( hol di ng thatm anage m entof i t s docket is c o m m itte d to th e s o u n d d is c re tio n o f th e D is tr ic t C o u rt ). B urkhartchall eng es num erous evident i aryrul i ng s, w hich w e al so revi ew for abu se o f d is c re tio n . S e e H u rl e yv . A tla n tic C ity P o lic e D e p t., 1 7 4 F .3 d 9 5 , 1 1 0 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 9 ). E r r oneous evi dent i aryrul i ngs w i l l be cons i der ed harm l es s i f “‘ i ti s hi ghl ypr obabl e that t he err ordi d notcontr i but e t o t he j udgm ent . ’ ” U ni t ed St at es v. D avi s , 183 F. 3d 231, 255 ( 3d C i r . 1999) ( quot i ng M ur r ayv. U ni t ed of O m aha Li fe I ns . C o. , 145 F. 3d 143, 156 ( 3d C ir . 1 9 9 8 )) . B u rk h a rt a lleg e s th a t th e M a g istra te J u d g e im p ro p e rlye x c lu d e d a s irre lev a n t a l et t erB ur khar tw r ot e i n 1999 t o Pat r i ck R . D onahoe, the A l l eghenyA r ea O ffi ce V i ce Pr es i dent , det ai l i ng heral l egat i ons of di s cr i m i nat i on. B ur khar t ’ s tr i al couns el s t at ed thatA lth o u g h B u rkh art all eg es th at th e P o stal S erv ice’s “d isplayo f p o rt ion s o f [ the lett er] 5

. . . cr eat ed an unf

ai rdi s advant age t o t he Pl ai nt i ff f orobvi ous r eas ons , ” s he does not id e n tif yth o s e re a s o n s , n o r c a n w e d is c e rn a n y . 6 t he l et t erw as offe r ed t o demonstr at e “Burkha r t ’ s at t empt t o geta managerof the [P] os t al [S] ervi ce t o payat t ent i on t o al l of the eve nt s thatform herbel i ef” thats he w as d iscri m inated ag ains t w h il e w o rkin g at th e A ll eg h en yA rea O ff ice. I m p o rt an tl y , h o w ev er, t he onl yal l egat i on of di s cr i m i nat i on ar i s i ng fr om B ur khar t ’ s w or k atthe A l l eghenyA r ea O ffi ce w as hercl ai m t hats he w as nots el ect ed t o i nt ervi ew fora pr om ot i on. W hether B ur khar tat t empt ed t o i nform a managerof al l eged di s cr i m i nat i on atthe A l l eghenyA r ea O ffi ce i s i r r el evantt o t hatcl ai m . B ur khar tnow al l eges , forthe fi r s tt i m e, thats he s ought t o i nt r oduce the l et t ert o demonstr at e thatD onahoe w as aw ar e of he ral l egat i ons , a fa ct w hi ch w oul d s uppor thercont ent i on t hatD onahoe or ches t r at ed the r et al i at oryact s that all eg ed lyo cc u rred w h il e B u rkh art w o rke d at th e G M F . B ec au se, ho w ev er, B u rkh art t es t i fi ed thats he had s entt he l et t erand br i efl ydes cr i bed i t s cont ent s , ther e w as no r eas on t o admi tt he l et t eri t s el f. 5 T he M agi s t r at e J udge al s o pr oper l yexcl uded the depos i t i on t es t i m onyof Fl or ence Spady , t he cha i rper s on of the r evi ew comm i t t ee thatexami ned appl i cat i ons forthe pos i t i on t o w hi ch B ur khar tappl i ed. Spadyappar ent l yt es t i fi ed i n herdepos i t i on thats he bel i eved thatB ur khar tw as one of the fourbes tappl i cant s forthe j ob. W e agr ee thatt he depos i t i on t es t i m onyw as hear s ay , and thatB ur khar tfai l ed t o demonstr at e thatSpadyw as

“ u n a v a ila b le a s a w itn e s s .” S e e F e d . R . E v id . 8 0 4 (b )( 1 ); s e e a ls o K ir k v . R a ym a rk In d u s .,7

I nc. , 61 F. 3d 147, 165 ( 3d C i r . 1995) ( not i ng that“i ti s the pr oponentof the s t at ement offe r ed underR ul e 804 w ho bear s t he bur den of pr ovi ng the unava i l abi l i t yof the decl ar ant ”) . A decl ar anti s “unava i l abl e” w hen s he “i s abs entfr om the hea r i ng and the pr oponentof a s t at ementhas been una bl e t o pr ocur e the dec l ar ant ’ s at t endanc e . . . by pr oces s orot herr eas onabl e means . ” Fed. R . E vi d. 804( a) ( 5) . H er e, B ur khar t ’ s at t orney a d m itte d a t tr ia l th a t h e d id n o t e v e n re q u e s t th a t S p a d yb e p ro d u c e d f o r t ri a l. I n addi t i on, t her e i s no m er i tt o B ur khart ’ s al l egat i on thatthe M agi s t r at e J udge p rev en ted h er f

rom reb u tt ing the testi m o n yo f D r. S tuart B u rnstein, th e P o stal S erv ice’s expertw i t nes s . B ur khar t ’ s at t or neycr os s - exami ned D r . B urns t ei n atl ength w i t hout r es t r i ct i on, and nothi ng i n t he r ecor d s ugges t s thatB ur khar tw as pr event ed fr om cal l i ng rebut t al w i t nesses. B urkhartal so cl ai m s that the M agis t rat e Judg e preven t ed h er fi rs t w i t nes s , J ani ce Cher r yN el m s , fr om t es t i fy i ng about“di s cr i m i nat i on occurr i ng atthe A lleg h e n yo f

f ice d u rin g th e sa m e tim e f ra m e o f P lain tiff ’s a lleg a tio n s.” T h e M a g istra te Ju d g e , h o w e v e r, d id p e rm it N e lm s to so tes tify , b u t B u rk h a rt’s a tto rn e yd id n o t re c a ll N el m s , cl ai m i ng t hats he had r etur ned t o herj ob i n W as hi ngt on, D . C . , fol l ow i ng her t e s t i m o n y t h e p r e v i o u s d a y. B ur khar tal s o compl ai ns t hatthe ca s e w as tr i ed bef or e a M agi s t r at e J udge, r ather t han a D i s t r i ctC our tj udge. N ot abl y , though, the part i es cons ent ed t o have the ca s e tr i ed befor e a M agi s t r at e J udge. See D i s t r i ctC our tD ocketE ntr yN o. 72. B ur khar tfur t her al l eges t hatt he M agi s t r at e J udge “r efus [ed] ” t o al l ow hert o amend hercompl ai nt . T he8

D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s docketi ndi cat es , how ever , thatB ur khar t ’ s onl ym ot i on t o amend her c o m p lain t w a s g ra n ted . F u rth e rm o re , B u rk h a rt c o n ten d s th a t it“ w a s im p o ss ib le f o r h e r to recei ve a f

ai r tri al ” beca use t he M agis t rat e Judg e “l i m i t [ed] the ti m i ng of the t ri al t o just 1 0 h o u rs” p er side an d d id n o t pro v ide h er w ith su ff ici en t t im e f

o r reb u tt al t esti m o n y . In a pr e- t r i al or der , t he M agi s t r at e J udge s etthe “[ e] s t i m at ed [t ] r i al [t ] i m e” a nd al l ow ed the par t i es t o obj ect . N ei t herpar t ydi d s o. B ur khar tnow s t at es thats he had “ i n exce s s of 50 w itn esse s an d o v er 5 0 0 0 d o cu m en ts of ev iden ce . ” B u rkh art do es n o t al lege , h o w ev er, t hat the M agis t rat e Judg e excluded w i t nesses or evi den ce bec ause of t i m e con si derat i on s, and ther e i s no i ndi cat i on t hatB ur khar t ’ s r ebut t al t es t i m onyw as curt ai l ed bec aus e of insu ff ici en t t im e. F inally , B u rkh art’s un su p p o rt ed co n tention that the P o stal S erv ice’s c o u n se l k n o w in g lym a d e f a lse sta tem e n ts to th e c o u rt is w ith o u t m e rit. F o rt h e f o r e g o i n g r e a s o n s , we wi l l a f f i r m.