C h ief Ju d g e R ay m o n d J. D ea ri e o f the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt fo r th e E astern * D i s t r i ctof N ew Y or k, s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. 09-0173 -cv Fau l v. Pot t er UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS F O R T H E S E C O N D C IR C U IT S UM M ARY OR DER RUL I NGS BY S UM M A R Y OR D E R D O N OT HA V E P RE CE DE NT I AL E FF E CT . CI T AT I ON TO S UM M ARY O R D E R S F ILE D A F T E R JA N U A R Y 1, 20 0 7 , I S P E R M ITT E D A N D I S G O V E R N E D B Y T H IS C O U R T ’S LO C A L RU LE 32 . 1 AN D FEDER A L RU LE O F AP PELLA TE PRO C EDU R E 32 . 1. I N A BR I EF O R O TH ER PA P E R I N W HI C H A L I T I G A N T C I T E S A S U M M A R Y OR D E R , I N E A C H P A R A G R A P H I N W HI CH A C I T A T I ON A P P E A R S , A T L E A S T ON E C I T A T I ON M U S T E I T HE R BE T O T HE F E D E R A L A P P E N D I X OR BE ACCOM PA NI E D BY T HE NOT AT I ON: ( S UM M ARY ORDE R) . A PA RT Y CI T I NG A S UM M ARY O R D E R M U S T S E R V E A C O P Y O F T H A T S U M M A R Y O R D E R T O G E T H E R W IT H T H E P A P E R IN W H I C H TH E S U M M A R Y O R D ER I S C I TED O N AN Y PAR TY N O T REPR ESENTE D BY CO U N SEL U N L E S S T H E S U M M A R Y O R D E R IS A V A IL A B L E IN A N E L E C T R O N IC D A T A B A S E W H IC H IS PU BL I CL Y ACCE S S I BL E W I T HO UT PA YM E NT OF FE E ( S UCH AS T HE DAT ABAS E AVAI L ABL E AT H TTP: / / W W W . C A 2. U SCO U R TS. GO V / ) . I F NO CO PY I S SERV ED B Y REA SO N O F TH E AV A I LAB I LI TY OF T HE ORDE R ON S UCH A DAT ABAS E , T HE C I TATI O N M US T I NCL UDE RE FE RE NCE T O THAT DAT ABAS E AND T HE DOCKET NUM BE R OF T HE CA S E I N W HI CH THE ORDE R W AS E NT E RE D. A ta s t at ed t er m of t he U ni t ed S t at es C our t of A ppeal s fort he Second Ci r cui t , hel d at t he D ani el Pat r i ck M oyni han U ni t ed S t at es C our t hous e, 500 Pear l St r eet , i n t he C i t yof N ew Y or k, on t he 9 dayof D ece m ber , t w o t hous and ni ne. th P R E S E N T : J O H N M . W A L K E R , J R .,

R E E N A R A G G I,

C i r cui tJudges , RA YM ON D J
. DEA RI E, *

C hi ef D is tr i ct

Judge
.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -- RO BERTA K. FAU L, P l ai nt i f f

-Appel l ant , v. N o. 09- 0173- cv J O H N E
. PO T T E R , Postm as t erG ener al of the U n i t e d S t a t e s P o s t a l S e r v i c e , a F e d e r a l A g e n c y, D ef endant

-Appel l ee .

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -- AP P E AR I NG F OR AP P E L L ANT : M A R C E
. W EI NSTEI N ( Davi d B
. G uer t s en, C onboy , M cK ayL aw Fi r m , W at er t ow n, N ew Y o rk , on the br i ef

) , T r evos e, Penns y l vani a.2

APPEARI NG FOR APP ELLEE: R A Y E
. D O N A H U E , Speci a l As s i s t ant U ni t ed St at es A t t or ney( W i l l i am F
. L ar ki n, A s s i s t ant U ni t ed St at es A t t or ney , A ndr ew T. Ba x t er , U ni t ed St at es A t t or ney , N or t hern D i s t r i ctof N ew Y o r k, on the br i ef

) , W a s h i n g t o n , D. C. A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rtfo r th e N o rth ern D istri ct of N ew Y o rk (T h o m a s J . M c A v o y , Judge ). UP ON DUE CO NS I DE RA T I ON, I T I S HE RE BY OR DE RE D, ADJ UDGE D, AND D E C R E E D th a t th e ju d g m e n t e n ter e d o n D e c e m b e r 1 7 , 2 0 0 8 , is V A C A T E D a n d th e c a se is R E M A N D E D for furt her proceedings. R ober t a K
. Faul appea l s fr om an aw ar d of s um m aryj udgm enti n favorof her empl oy er , t he U ni t ed St at es Post al Ser vi ce ( “U SPS ”) , on her cl ai m t hat t he U SPS vi ol at ed T i t l e V I I of the C i vi l R i ght s A ctof 1964, 42 U
. S. C
. § 2000e et s eq. , by r et al i at i ng agai ns ther forfi l i ng compl ai nt s of s ex di s cr i m i nat i on. Faul as s er t s t h at th e d istr i ctcour terr ed by fi ndi ng t hats he fa i l ed t o r ai s e a ques t i on of fact as t o ( 1) w hether a ca us al connec t i on exi s t ed b e t we e n h e r 2 0 0 2 p r o t e c t e d c o n d u c t a n d t h e USP S ’ s 2 0 0 4 d e c i s i o n t o e l i mi n a t e h e rf u l l
- t i me pos i t i on, and ( 2) w hethert he U SPS ’ s 2004 deci s i on ( l at err es ci nded) t o i m pos e a one - w eek
su sp en s i on cons t i tut ed an “a d v erse em p loy m en t acti o n . ” F au l al so ap p ea ls th e d istri ct co u rt ’s deni al of herm ot i on t o r econs i dert he s um m aryj udgm entaw ar d. Sum m aryj udgm enti s pr operonl y“i f ther e i s no genui ne i s s ue as t o any m at er i al fac t
a n d
. . . the m o v an t is en ti tl ed to j u d g m en t as a m att er of law
. ” F ed
. R
. C iv. P
. 5 6 (c ). W e
re v iew a su m m a ry ju d g m e n t a w a rd d e n o v o , “ e x a m in in g th e f a c ts in th e lig h t m o st f

a v o ra b le3

t o t he non- m ovi ng par t yand r es ol vi ng al l fac tual ambi gui t i es i n t hat par t y ’ s favor
. ” Pyke v. C uom o, 567 F. 3d 74, 76 ( 2d C i r . 2009)
. W e re vi ew t he deni al of a mot i on t o r econs i derfor ab u se o f d iscreti o n . S ee U n iversa l C h u rch v . G elt ze r, 4 6 3 F
. 3 d 2 1 8 , 2 2 8 (2d C ir
. 2 0 0 6 ). In appl y i ng t hes e s t andards , w e as s um e fa m i l i ar i t yw i t h t he fa ct s and r ecor d of pr i or pr ocee di ngs , w hi ch w e r efe r ence onl yas nece s s aryt o expl ai n ourrul i ng. 1. T he El i m i nat i on of Faul ’ s Ful l
- T i m e Pos i t i on A l t hough t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s pr et extanal y s i s i s comm endabl ydet ai l ed and s ens i t i ve t o Faul ’ s ar gum ent s , w e neve r t hel es s di s agr ee w i t h i t s concl us i on t hatFaul fai l ed t o adduce
s uffi ci entevi dence t o al l ow a r eas onabl e fa ct - fi ndert o fi nd t he r equi s i t e ca us al nexus betw een he rpr ot ect ed ac t i vi t yand the U SPS ’ s deci s i on t o el i m i nat e her ful l
- t i m e pos i t i on. T o be s ur e, t he fi ft een- m ont h s epar at i on betw een Faul ’ s M ay2002 E qual E m pl oym ent O p p o rtu n ity(“ E E O ” ) c o m p lain t a n d th e N o v e m b e r 2 0 0 3 “ F u n c tio n F o u r” a u d it th a t led to t he M ar ch 2004 dec i s i on t o el i m i nat e herpos i t i on w oul d or di nar i l y under m i ne her cl ai m , s ee C l ar k C ount ySch. D i s t . v. B r eede n, 532 U
. S. 2 6 8 , 2 73- 74 ( 2001) , butFaul her e r el i es i ns t ead, as s he may , on ot herevi dence of Sands ’ s r et al i at or yani m us , s ee G or don v. N ew Y o rk C ityB d . o f E d u c ., 2 3 2 F .3 d 1 1 1 , 1 1 7 (2 d C ir. 2 0 0 0 ) (“ T h is C o u rt . . . h a s c o n sis ten tly hel d t hatpr oof of caus at i on can be s how n ei t her : ( 1) i ndi r ect l y , bys how i ng t hatt he pr ot ect ed act i vi t yw as fol l ow ed cl os el ybydi s cr i m i nat or yt r eatm ent. . . or( 2) di r ect l y , t hr ough
e v id e n c e o f

re talia to rya n im u s d ire c ted a g a in st th e p lain tiff b yth e d e f

e n d a n t”) (e m p h a sis
a d d e d ). C ausat i on evidence o f a “m i nim al ” or “de m i nim i s” n a tu r e s u f f i c e s a t t h e p r i ma4

fac i e s t age, Z i m m er m an v. A s s ocs . Fi r s t C api t al C orp. , 251 F. 3d 376, 381 ( 2d C i r . 2001) , and t hi s Faul has adduce d w i t h heras s er t i on t hatSands t hr eat ened he rj ob ( and t hatof another femal e empl oy ee) i n Sept ember 2002 coupl ed w i t h Sands ’ s r efus al t o denyt he as s er t i on. W e f u rth e r c o n c lu d e th a t, w h e n v iew in g th e re c o rd in th e lig h t “m o st f a v o ra b le” to Faul and r es ol vi ng “al l fac tual ambi gui t i es ” i n her favor , Py ke, 567 F. 3d at 76, t he ques t i on of pr et exti s genui nel yt r i al
- w or t hy
. W hi l e the di s t r i ctcour tpl ai nl yappr eci at ed the g r avamen
o f F a u l’s p re tex t ar g u m e n t ( th a t S a n d s w a s lo o k in g f o r a w a y to f

ire h e r a n d th a t th e re su lts
o f an au d it , o n ce co m m issi o n ed , w ere inev it ab le), it reso lved the a m b igu it ies i n the re co rd t hatt ended t o s uppor tt hos e ar gum ent s i n t he U SPS ’ s favorr athert han i n Faul ’ s . For exampl e, t aki ng not e of the evi dence t hatSands m ayhave t aken the unus ual s t ep of
r eques t i n g an au di tof hi s ow n offi ce, t he di s t r i ctcour tnevert hel es s r el i ed, i ns t ead, on t he t es t i m onyof U SPS N or t hern T i erO per at i ons M anage rM ary C h arn eyt hati tw as s he w ho
m a d e th e d e c is io n . Pr ocee di ng al te r nat i vel yt o as s um e thati tw as Sands w ho r eques t ed the audi t , t he di s t r i ct cour t concl uded t hat t he r equi s i t e caus al i nfer ence w as unavai l abl e as a mat t erof l aw abs entevi dence t hatSands ’ s m ot i ves i nfec t ed t he vi ew s of the audi t or s . H er e w e di s agr ee
w i t h t he di s t r i ctcour t . V i ew ed mostfavor abl yt o Faul , t he r ecor d cont ai ns no evi dence t hat the audi t or s ’ r ecomm endat i on w as t he fi nal w or d on Faul ’ s empl oym ents t atus . I ndeed, at
or al ar gum ent , the U S P S acknow l edged thati tw as w i t hi n Sands ’ s di s cr et i on t o r ej ectt he audi t or s ’ r ecomm endat i on t hat Faul ’ s pos i t i on be el i m i nat ed. T hus , even acc ept i ng t hatt he5

a u d ito rs d id th e ir jo b c o rre c tlyin re a c h in g th e ir a p p a re n tlyin e v itab le r e c o m m e n d a tio n to
ex ce ss F au l’ s p o sit ion , the reco rd he re pe rm it s the i n fe ren ce that it w as S an d s’s retali atory
m o tiv e s th a t o c c a sio n e d n o t o n lyth e ir a rriv a l, bu t a lso th e im p lem e n tatio n o f th e ir
r ecomm endat i on, and t hat s uch ani m us w as , t her efor e, “atl eas ta s ubs t ant i al orm ot i vat i ng fac t or ” i n t he el i m i nat i on of Faul ’ s ful l
- t i m e pos i t i on. R ani ol a v. B r at t on, 243 F. 3d 610, 625 ( 2d C i r . 2001) ( i nt ernal quot at i on m ar ks om i t t ed)
. T he per s i s t entdi s cor d betw een Sands and F a u l d u rin g th e f

if tee n m o n th s b e tw e e n h e r E E O c o m p lain t a n d th e a u d it i s n o t se rio u sly di s p u t e d ; a tl e a s to n e o t h e rwor k e ri n t h e Ca r t h a g e Po s tOff i c e b e l i e v e d t h e a u d i twas pr obabl yan ef

for tbySands t o el i m i nat e Faul ’ s pos i t i on; and the C ar t hage a udi tm ayhave been the fi r s tt o r es ul ti n t he exc es s i ng of an oc cupi ed pos i t i on . F o r th e se re a so n s, w e v a c a te a n d re v e rse th e g ra n t o f su m m a ryju d g m e n t o n th is b ra n c h o f

F a u l’s re talia tio n c laim a n d re m a n d f o r tria l. 2. T he Seven- D aySuspe ns i on T o p ro v e ret al i at i on , F aul m ustshow t hat the U S P S subject ed h er t o a m at eri al ly adver s e empl oym entact i on, i
. e. , one that“w el l m i ghthave di s s uaded a r eas onabl e w or ker fr om m aki ng ors uppor t i ng a cha r ge of di s cr i m i nat i on. ” B ur l i ngt on N
. & Sant a Fe R y . C o.
v. W hi t e, 548 U
. S. 53, 68 ( 2006) ( i nt ernal quot at i on m ar ks om i t t ed)
. T he U SPS conce des t hatt he di s t r i ctcour terr ed as a mat t erof l aw i n concl udi ng t hatFaul coul d notpr ove thather
s us pens i on cons t i tut ed su ch an a dver s e ac t i on i n l i ghtof herow n s ubs equentfi l i ng of a d iscri m ination co m p lai n t. S ee P atan e v . C lark, 50 8 F
. 3 d 1 0 6 , 1 1 6 (2d C ir
. 2 0 0 7 ).6

N ever t hel e s s , t h e USPS u r g e s u s t o a f f i r m on th e g r o u n d t h a tFa u l ’ s r e s c i n d e d s e v e n - day
s us pens i on cannotcons t i tut e an a dver s e empl oym entact i on as a m at t er of l aw beca us e s he di d notactual l ys uffe ranyw age l os s or ot her i nj ur y dur i ng t hat t i m e. C f. L ovej oy - W i l s on
v. N O C O M ot orFuel , I nc. , 263 F. 3d 208, 224 ( 2 d C ir
. 2 0 0 1 ) ( hol di ng t hatone- w eek
s us pens i on w i t houtpayi s adver s e ac t i on, even i f pay i s l at er r ei m bur s ed, beca us e pl ai nt i ff “atl eas ts uffe r ed the l os s of the us e of he rw ages fora t i m e”) ; s ee a l s o N agl e v. V i l l age of C al um etPar k, 554 F. 3d 1106, 1120- 21 ( 7t h C i r . 2009) ( hol di ng t hat n o ad v erse act i on
occurr ed w her e pl ai nt i ff ne ver s er ved s us pens i on) ; B al och v. K empt hor ne, 550 F. 3d 1191, 1199 ( D. C. Ci r . 2 0 0 8 ) ( s a me )
. W h e t h e r o r n o t p a r t i c u l a r d i s c i p l i n e wou l d di s s uade a
r eas onabl e w or keri n a part i cul arj ob fr om m aki ng a char ge of di s cr i m i nat i on r equi r es car eful
con s i de r a t i on of t he t ot a l i t y of t he c i r c ums t a nc e s . Se e W hi t e , 54 8 U
. S. a t 68 ( “ W e ph ras e th e sta n d a rd in g e n e ra l t e r m s b e c a u se th e sig n if ica n c e o f a n yg iv e n a c t o f

re talia tio n w ill oft en depe nd upon t he part i cul arci r cumst ance s . C o n t extm at t er s . ”)
. I n t hei rt ot al i t y , t he ci r cumst ance s her e, w e bel i eve, r ender t he m at er i al adver s i t y of t he seve n- days us pens i on an issue n o t app rop ri ate f o r sum m aryd ispo sit ion
. W e the ref o re v ac ate the d istri ct co u rt ’s
c o n c lu sio n to th e c o n tra rya n d re m a n d f o r tria l. 3. M ot i on t o R econs i der In lig h t o f

o u r d e c isio n to v a c a te a n d re m a n d th e su m m a ryju d g m e n t aw a rd o n b o th b ran ch es o f F au l’ s retali ati o n claim , w e n ee d n o t con side r he r ch all en g e to th e d istri ct co u rt ’s d e n ia l o f h e r m o tio n f

o r r e c o n s id e ra tio n .7

F o r th e f o r e g o in g re a so n s, th e d istric t co u rt’s a w a rd o f su m m a ryju d g m e n t o n b o th b ra n c h e s o f

F a u l’ s re ta lia tio n c la im is V A C A T E D a n d R E M A N D E D f o r t ri a l. F O R T H E C O U R T : C A T H E R IN E O ’H A G A N W O L F E , C lerk o f C o u rt
B y :

_______________________