NO T REC OM M EN DE D F OR P UB LIC AT ION File Na me: 08a0111n.06 Filed: F ebrua

ry 20, 2008 No. 07-5491 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT
JOSE P H P . MALLOY, P laintif f-App ellant,
v. JOH N E . P OTTE R, P os tm as te r G e ne r al, Defendan t-Appellee. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON AP P EAL FROM THE U NI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT FOR THE WES TERN DI STRI CT OF KENTUCKY

BEF ORE: M ERRI TT, G ILM AN , a nd C OOK, C ir c uitJudg e s. MERRITT, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff, J oseph Malloy , appea ls the district court’s g rant of summary judgme nt in f

av o r o f the de fenda

nt Post master Ge nera l of the United States Post Office (“ Pos t O ff

ic e ” ), on his c la ims of

re ve rs e g e nd e r d isc ri min a tio n, a g e dis c ri min a tio n, re ta liatio n in vio latio n o f t

he Ag e Di sc ri min atio n in Em plo y me nt A c t of

19 67 and Title VI Iof

the Civ il Ri g hts Act of 1964 a

nd his combined claim of ha rassment a

nd hostile work environme nt. Be cause we a g ree that the plaintiff has f

ailed to establish a prima facie case on any of his c laims or otherwise pr esent colora ble claims in the fa ce of motions for summary judgme nt, we af

firm the district cour

t’s opinion. Ma llo y be g an w or

kin g fo r t he Pos ta l Se rv ic e in L ou isv ill e , Ke ntu c ky , in 19 91 a s a pa rt -t ime
car rier, be coming a full-time ca rrier in 1995. I n 1993, Malloy made a claim with both the Offic e ofNo. 07-5491

Malloy v. Potter

-2- Equal Employ

ment and the Of

fice of Workers’ Compensation pr og rams. Due to Malloy ’s re peate d
a bs e nc e s f ro m w or k, the Pos ta l Se rv ic e so ug ht t o r e mov e him . M a llo y fi le d a n a pp e a l wi th t

he Me ri t Sy stems Protection Boa

rd challeng ing his r emoval on the basis that the Postal Service ha d violated th e F ami ly

M e d ic a l L e av e A c t ( F M L A )
. T h e me r it s y s te ms a

p p e a l w a s s e tt le d

w h e nth e Po s ta l Service and Malloy

enter ed into a L ast Chance Ag ree ment , wh i ch stated that Malloy would be terminated f

or any future violations and that he would have to transfe r to a diff ere nt station. In J une 2001, Malloy

rec eived two L etters of

Warningfor f

ailing to f ollow instructions after
us ingun a uth or ize d o ve rt ime . M a llo y a lle g e s th a t he wa s f

or c e d to wor k o ve rt ime in o rd e r t o
c omp le te his ro ute be c a

us e it w a s im

po ssi ble to c omp le te on

a no rm a l e ig ht- ho ur

sh if t and that on ly
m en o v er th e a ge o f 5 0 we re d i s ci p l i n ed
. Af t er re ce i v i n g th e l et t er s , M al l o y s o u gh tE E O c o un s el i n g. In Ap ri l 20 02 , the Pos ta l Se rv ic e iss ue d a No tic e of Pr op os e d Re mov a l f

or c on tin ue d a bs e nte e ism and unsatisfa ctory

work pe rfor

mance . On M ay 1 5 , 2 0 0 2 , the Postal Service ter minated Malloy ’s employ ment. To establish a prima facie c la im o f a g e dis c ri min atio n u nd er th e Ag e Di sc ri min a tio n in Employ ment Act of 1967, a plaintiff m ust show that: (1) he was at least 40 y ear s old at t he time of the alleg ed discriminati o n , (2) he was subjec ted to an adve rse e mploy ment action, (3) he wa s otherwise qua lified for the position, and (4) he w as treated diffe rently from employ ees under ag e 40. Se e Tut tlev . M

e tro . G ov ’t

of N as hv ille , 474 F.3d 307, 317 (6th Cir. 2007). The f ourth eleme nt may be satisfied “ by

showing that sim i l ar ly

situated non-prote cted e mploy ees w ere treated more favor ably .” Talley v. Bravo P itino Rest., Lt d. , 61 F.3d 1241, 1246 (6th Cir. 1995). The plaintiff’s fa ilure to e sta

bli shthe fo ur

th e le me nt p re c lud e s t he ne c e ssi ty of dis c us sin g the oth e r e le me nts
.No. 07-5491

Malloy v. Potter

-3- Nothing in the r ecor d, save the plaintiff’s spec ulations, supports a finding that employ ees unde r 40
we re no t si mil arl y

re pr ima nd e d f or the un a uth or ize d us e of

ov e rt ime or

the fa ilure to c omp le te the ir
ro ute s. Ad dit ion a lly , the pla int if f did no t sh ow that the re we re oth e r e mpl oy e e s wh o we re sim ila rl y situated in that they

wer e g overne d by

a L ast Chance Ag ree ment or had histories of absente eism. Even if the pla intiff established a prima facie case of age discrimination, he fails to show that the Postal Service’ s non-discriminatory rea sons f or disciplining and firinghim — absentee ism and po or wo rk pe rf or manc e — w e re pr e te xts f or dis c ri min a tio n. To e sta

bli sh pr e te xt, a pla int if

f m us t demonstrate “ that the proff ere d rea son (1) ha s no b as i s i n fact, (2) did not ac tually motivate the defe ndant’s cha lleng ed conduct, or (3) was insufficient to war rant the c halleng ed conduc t.” W exle r v. W hite’s Fine Furniture, Inc

. , 3 1 7 F. 3 d 5 6 4 , 5 7 6 (6 thC i r. 2 0 0 3 ) ( qu o t i n g Dews v. A.B. Dick Co. , 231 F.3d 1016, 1021 ( 6th Cir. 2000)). Neither the record nor the pl aintiff produces any evidenc e, beyond mere asser

tions, that the P ostal Service ’s actions wer e a prete x t for discrimination. I nstead, the numerous wa

rning s issued to Malloy , meeting s with him about his performanc e, an d a supervisor’ s inspection of his route, show that the P ostal Service ’s decision to fire him was based on his repeated abse nces a nd failure to complete his tasks within an allotted time. Th e pla int if

f’ s re ve rs e g e nd e r dis c ri min a tio n cla im simi larl y fa ils be c a us e the pla int if

f d id
n o te s t a b l i s hth at m e mb e r s o u t s i d e o f

h i s p r o t e c t e d

c l a s s w e r e tr e a t e d

m o r e f av o r a b l y. S p e c i f

i c a l l y, Malloy did not point t o any fema le employ ees who wer e si milarly situated to him in that they wer e subject to a L ast Chance Ag ree ment. Ag ain, t he plainti ff’ s claims are based upon speculations that
are not supported by

the re cord. To the ex t en t t h at women a nd men and older

and young er employ ees ha

ve diffe rent route s of var

ying difficulty , it cannot be attributed to either ag e or g enderNo. 07-5491

Malloy v. Potter

-4- discrimination beca

use the e mploy ees bid on those r outes based sole ly on seniority
. The plaintiff also fails to establish a prima facie case of re taliation. There was no tempora l pr oximi ty betwe e n th e pr ote c te d a c tiv ity (t wo EE O f

ili ng s and a F MLA c la im) and

the a dv e rs e employ ment action (L etters of

Warning , L ast Chance Agr ee m ent, and Ma lloy ’s termination). Fur ther, the pla intiff fails to provide a ny evidenc e that the protec ted activity and the adver se ac tions
wer e ca usally related or that the a dverse actions we re not leg itimate responses to the plaintiff’ s poor work perf ormanc e and a

bsentee ism. Se e Mo rri

s v . O ldh am Cou nty

Fi sc al C ou rt , 201 F.3d 784, 792- 93 (6th Cir. 2000) (statingthat there must be a ca usal conne ction betwee n the protec ted ac tivity and the adve rse e mploy

ment action and that a plaintiff must show that the employ er’ s proffe red r eason for the r etaliatory

act wa s not the actua l rea son for the e mploy ment decision). Ma llo y ’s ho sti le wo rk

e nv ir onme nt/

ha ra ssm e nt c la im und e r t

he Age Di sc ri min a tio n in Employ ment Act and under Title VI I of t he C ivil Rights Act is also without merit. Se e Cra wfo rd v. Me dina Gen. Hosp. , 9 6 F .3 d 8 30 , 8 34 -3 5 ( 6th Cir. 1996) (discussing a hostile work environme nt
c la im i n r e g ard s to a g e dis c ri min atio n) ; Fleenor v. He witt Soap Co. , 8 1 F .3 d 4 8, 49 (6 th Cir. 1996) (discussing a hostile work e nvironment claim in reg ards to sex discrimination). The plaintiff a lleg es that hi s su

pe rv iso rs ma de re pe ate d c omm e nts a bo ut M a llo y ’s a g e and

g e nd e r t hat e ve ntu a lly

le d to the war nings and his termination. The re cord, how ever , sug g ests that the war nings a nd subsequent termination resulted solely from Malloy ’s continued a bsence s and poor work performa nce. He ha s not shown that either of

these re aso n s we re p re t exts for discr imination. Even assuming that the manag ement made comments about his a g e or g ave him contr adictory work orde rs, these instanc esNo. 07-5491

Malloy v. Potter

-5- fail to meet the minimum threshol d for an objectively hostile work environme nt. See Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc. , 5 10 U. S. 1 7, 22 -2 3 ( 19 93 ) ( lis tin g fa c tor s th a t c ourt s sh ou ld con side r i n de te rm ini ng wh e the r the re is a ho sti le wo rk

e nv ir onme nt) ; W

illiams v. Ge neral Motors Corp. , 187 F .3 d 5 53 , 5 68 (6 th C ir . 1 99 9) (f ind ing that a pla int if

f m us t sh owthat th e wo rk

e nv ir onme nt i s b oth objectively

and subjec tively

hostile). F or the fo re g oin g re a so ns , w e AF F I RM the jud g me nt o f t he dis tr ic t c ourt
.