T h e H on or abl e Ann Al dr i ch , U n i t ed St at es D i s t r i ct J u dg e f or t h e N or t h er n D i s t r i ct o f O hi o , s i t t i n g by * d esi gnat i o n.

A ge i s a p rotect ed charact eri st i c und er t he A ge D i scr i m i nat i o n i n E m p l o y m ent A ct rat her t han und er T i t l e V II , 1 and T o l b ert did no t rai se an A D E A c la im in he r com p l ai nt
. W e no t e, how ever, t hat t he requir em ent s f o r proving a d isp a ra te tre a tm e n t cla im un d e r th e A D E A a n d T itl e V II a re id e n tica l.

T o l b ert al so b rought a st at e- l aw cl ai m f o r i nt ent i o nal i nf

l i ct i o n o f em o t i o nal dis t res s, al t ho ugh t he d i st ri ct co urt 2 di d n ot a dd r e s s t h e me r i t s of t h i s c l a i m. NO T REC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 06a0794n.06 F iled: October 25, 2006 Case No. 05- 2185 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT TERRYY. TOLB ER T, P laintif f-App ellant,

v. JOHN E. POTTER, in his of fi cial capacity as P os tm as te r G e ne r al, Defendan t-Appellant.

_____________________________________ ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON AP P EA L F RO M THE UNITED STAT ES DIS TRICT COURT F OR THE E ASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

BEFORE: K

EITH and B ATCHELDER, Circuit Jud ges; ALDRICH , District Judge. * ALICE M. BATCHEL DER, Circ uit Jud ge. Pla int if f Te rr y Y. To lbe rt

(“ To lbe rt ” ) a

pp e a ls the district court’s g rant of summar y judgme nt in favor of

Def endant United States Postal Service (“U SPS ”) on Tolbert’s claims of re taliation, in violation of Titl e VI Iof the Civil Ri g hts Act of 1964; discrimination on the basis of ag e, rac e, and g ender , in violation of Title VI I ; a nd discrimination on 1 the ba sis of

ha nd ic a p, in vio latio n of the Re ha bil itatio n Ac t and

Am e ri c ans WithDi sa

bil iti e s A c t. 22

Tolbert, a bla ck fe male, wa s a letter c arrier ba sed at the F enkell statio n i n Detroit for over 30 y ear s. In 1997, afte r that s tation implemented major cha ng es in the letter c arr iers’ r outes, she beg an havingproblems completingher r oute on time. She claims that the mea sures instituted by her

s u p e r v i s o r s i nr e s p o n s e t o h e r p r o b l e m s , s u c ha s r e qu i r i n gh e r t o s u b m i tt o “ f

i tn e s s f o r d u ty” examinations, observing he r on her route, a nd counting her ma il, were not, as the De fenda nt maint ai n s , d esig ned to deter mine the ca

use of the de ficienc y , but were discriminatory . Tolbert claims furthe r that she unde rwe nt surg ery in September 1997 and submitted a reque st for tempora ry

rea ssignment to lig ht duty that was de nied, wher eas a nother letter

car rier – a black male – was g rante d light du t y

two months later, and that on one occa sion she rec eived a “No Time O ff L etter of Warning ” whe n she fa iled to call the station timely and f ai l ed t o t i m ely

complete he r route. F ina lly , T olb e rt

c la ims that w he n s he a

pp ro a c he d on e of he r su

pe rv iso rs in July 19 98 in h e r c a pa c ity as a union stewa

rd in order

to have the supe rvisor si g n g rieva nce forms, the s upervisor c ursed at her, kic ke d a c ha ir , r ipp e d a

bo ok fr om a sh e lf , a nd oth e rw ise e ng a g e d in

int imi datin ga c tio ns . Tolbert filed se vera l gr ievanc es with the EEOC re lating to these ac tions, and eventua lly filed this lawsuit. S he ar g ues that the USPS discriminated ag ainst her on the basis of her ag e, sex, race , and handic ap, and that it retaliated against her for f iling prior grieva

nces w ith the EEOC. The distr ic t c o urt d is a g r e e d , g r an te d th e U SP S’ s mo ti o nf

o r s u mm ar y ju d g me n t, an d

d e n ie d T o lbe rt’s mot ion fo r r e c on sid e ratio n. To lbe rt tim e ly a pp e a le d b oth

or de rs . Th e dis tr ic t court tho ro ug hly re vie we d the e vid e nc e in the re c or d re g ard ingTo lbe rt ’s c la ims of discrimination a

nd reta liation. The court conclude d that as to he r claim that a supervisor ha d intimi dated he r, Tolber

t had fa iled to establish the essential elements of a pr ima fac ie ca se of dis c ri min atio n b e c a

us e sh e did

no t sh owany

a dv e rs e e mpl oy

me nt a c tio n. As to h e r o the r c la ims ,3

the court held, even assuming that Tolbert had e stablished a prima f acie case of discrimination, she failed to pr ovide evidenc e sufficie nt to permit a jury to find pretext. Turning to Tolbe rt’s cla ims of

re ta liatio n, the dis tr ic t c ourt he ld that To lbe rt ha d no t pr e se nte d e vid e nc e fr om whic h a jur y c ou ld conclude that the supervisors’ actions such as countingher ma ils, observing her on he r route, a nd

re qu ir inghe r to s ub mit

to f itn e ss f or duty e xami natio ns c on sti tut e d s e ve re or pe rv a siv e ha

ra ssm e nt, and that she the ref

ore did not establish a pr ima fac ie ca se of r etaliation as to those cla ims. The court further conclude d that Tolbert’s claims that the discre te ac ts of the USPS, s uch as de nying he r lig ht duty reque st and issuing a

“No Tim e Off L etter of

Warning ,” fa iled beca

use, with reg ard to the int imi datin gc on du c t of

the su pe rv iso r s he ha d n ot s ho wn an a dv e rs e e mpl oy

me nt a c tio n, and

wi th

re g ard to t he oth e r d isc re te a c ts c omp la ine d o f, sh e ha d n ot p re se nte d e vid e nc e su ff ic ie nt t o p e rm it

a fi nd ingof

pr e te xt. After car efully revie wingthe rec ord, the applicable law, and the par ties’ brief s (counse l for bo th p art ie s h avin g wa ive d ora l ar g ume nt) , we are c onvin c e d that the dis tr ic t court did no t e rr in i ts conclusions that the USPS was entitled to summary judgme nt. In particula

r, we find no err or in the district court’s holdingthat cer tain of the doc umentary evidenc e submitted by

Tolbert wa s inadmissible he arsa

y and could not be consider ed by the cour t in decidingthe summary judgme nt motion. W e also note that the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusingto gr ant Tolbert’ s motion for rec onsideration bec ause the evidenc e Tolber t wanted the district c ourt to consider w as available at the time the summary judgme nt motion was de cided, a nd would not have a ffe cted the outcome eve n if consider ed. S e e H u ff v . M e tro . Li fe I n s. Co. , 6 7 5 F.2d 119, 123 ( 6th Cir. 1982); Em mo ns v . M

c Lau gh lin , 8 74 F .2 d 3 51 , 35 8 ( 6th Cir . 1 98 9) (a

dis tr ic t c ourt

do e s n ot a

bu se its4

discretion by

denying a motion for rec onsideration wher e the par ty seekingrelief

from judg ment had the supportingmateria ls at the time the district court made the ruling ). As the district court’s opinion caref ully and cor rec tly sets out the law g overningthe issues raised, and clea

rly articulates the re asons under lying its dec ision, iss uance of a f ull written opinion by this co u rt wo u l dserve no useful purpose . Acc ording ly , for the r easons state d in the district court’s opinion, we AF F IRM

.