2009 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 6-24-2009 

# Andrew K ond a s v . P o s tm a s te r Ge ne ral o 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 . 08-4015

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_2009

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 2009 D e c i sion s b y an authori 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 " Andr ew Kond as v

. P os tm as t e r Ge ne r al o " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1140. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/1140H onor abl e Paul S. D i amond, U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctJ udge forthe East ern D i s t r i ct * of Penns y l vani a, s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. NOT 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. 08- 4015

____________ A N D RE W J . K O N D A S, A ppel l ant

v. J A C K E . PO T T E R , Postm as t erG ener al , U ni t ed St at es Post al Ser vi ce

____________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e M id d le D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . N o. 05- cv- 01861) D istric t Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le A . R ich a rd C a p u to

____________ Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J une 2, 2009 B e f o re : F IS H E R a n d C H A G A R E S , C i r cui tJudges , a n d DI AM OND, D is tr i ct Judge . * ( Fi l ed: J une 24, 2009 )

____________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

____________2

D I A M O N D , D is tr i ct

Judge . A ndr ew J . K ondas br oughtthi s act i on underthe R ehabi l i t at i on A ctof 1973, a lle g in g , in tera lia , thatJ ack E. Pot t er , Postm as t erG ener al of the U ni t ed St at es Post al Ser vi ce ( “U SPS ”) , i m perm i s s i bl yr et al i at ed aga i ns thi m forengagi ng i n l egal l ypr ot ect ed act i vi ty . 29 U . S. C . §§ 791, 794. K ondas appea l s fr om the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s entryof s u mma ryj u d g me n ti n f a v o ro f th e USP S . W e wi l l a f

f i r m. I. T h e D is tr ic t C o u rt h a d s u b je c t m a tte r j u ri s d ic tio n p u rs u a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 3 3 1 . W e have appel l at e j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291. II. B ec au se w e w ri te prim aril yfo r th e P arti es, w e w il l sum m arize th is m att er’s e x t e n s i v e h i s t o r y. K o n d a s is a tec h n icia n a t th e U S P S P ro c e ss in g a n d D istrib u tio n C e n ter in Scr ant on, Penns y l vani a. ( A pp. at45. ) U nt i l 1998, K ondas per i odi cal l yr ece i ved machi ne tr ai ni ng atthe U SPS N at i onal C ent erforE m pl oym entD evel opm ent( N C E D ) i n N or m an, O kl ahoma. K ondas had gr eatdi ffi cul tyw or ki ng w i th N C E D i ns truct or s B ut ch Turne r a n d B o b L e e . (A p p . a t 8 8 -8 9 , 1 0 0 .) B efor e begi nni ng a N ovember1998 N C E D tr ai ni ng s es s i on, K ondas as ked t o be a s s ig n e d to in s tru c to rs o th e r t h a n T u rn e r ( w h o m h e d e s c ri b e d a s a n “ a * * h * * * ” ) a n d L e e . ( A pp. at89, 141. ) N C E D Super vi s orE r l i ne C har l t on deni ed K ondas ’ s r eques t . ( A pp. at3

9 0 .) K o n d a s re s p o n d e d th a t h e w o u ld “ n o t [ b e ] r e s p o n s ib le if [ L e e ] t o u c h e s m e a g a in . Y ou putm e i n a cl as s w i th hi m agai n and he ge t s cocky , I ’ m notr es pons i bl e forw hat h a p p e n s.” (A p p . at 9 0 .) W h e n C h a rlto n a sk e d K o n d a s w h a t h e w o u ld d o if h e w e re a g a in i ns truct ed byT urnerorL ee, K ondas s t at ed: “I don’ tcar e, I ’ l l do anythi ng . . . theyhave pr i nt er s , I don’ tcar e, I ’ l l p**s i n them i f I have t o. ” ( A pp. at113 ( T r i al T r . A ug. 16, 2001, K ondas v. H ender s on, N o. 00- 0276 ( M . D . Pa. ) . ) K ondas al s o r epea t edl ys ai d he w oul d “ki ck[] any one’ s a** w ho i nt er fer ed, ” and s t at ed that“he kne w s om ethi ng about c h e m ic a ls a n d c o u ld d o lo ts o f th in g s .” (A p p . a t 1 4 1 -4 2 .) I n D ece m berof 1998, K ondas r ece i ved an N C E D cour s e compl et i on cert i fi cat e on w h ich h e w ro te: “ I w ill re tu rn a n d p a yb a c k is g u a ra n tee d . [N C E D S u p e rv iso r] E d N a h l, T el l B ut ch Turne r ! ” ( A pp. at129. ) A ccor di ng t o C har l t on, K ondas “s l apped dow n” the c e rt if ic a te o n h e r d e s k a n d le f t. ( A p p . a t 1 4 1 .) I n D ece m ber1998, N C E D M anage rSt even M os i eracc ept ed the r ecomm endat i on of the N C E D ’ s T hr eatA s s es s m entT eam t hatthe U SPS barK ondas fr om the C ent er beca us e he ha d vi ol at ed U SPS ’ s Z er o T ol er ance Pol i cyforvi ol ence and thr eat s of vi ol e nc e . ( A pp . a t11 6, 12 2, 16 3- 64 , 28 1, 28 5- 86 . ) O n Fe brua ry12 , 19 99 , the U SPS fi r ed K ondas beca us e he ha d vi ol at ed the Zer o T ol er ance Pol i cy . ( A pp. at516. ) K ondas f ile d a u n io n g ri e v a n c e , a n d o n J u n e 3 0 , 2 0 0 0 , a n a rb itr a to r o rd e re d re in s ta te m e n t. K ondas , w ho s uffe r s fr om A D H D , anxi ety , and depr es s i on, then s ued the U SPS , al l egi ng th a t it h a d te rm in a te d h im in v io la tio n o f th e R e h a b ilita tio n A c t b e c a u s e o f h is d is a b iliti e s .4

S ee K o n d as v . H en d erso n , N o . 0 0 -02 7 6 (M . D . P a.). T h e m att er w en t t o tr ial b ef o re a jury w h ich, on A u g u st 20 , 2 0 0 1 , return ed a v erd ictin f av o r of the U S P S . (A p p . at 18 6 . ) K ondas w i thdr ew hi s appea l fr om thatj udgm ent . See K ondas v. H ender s on, N o. 01- 3791 (3d C ir . ). In A u g u st o f

2 0 0 2 , U S P S a tto rn e yC o u rtn e yW h e e ler -- w h o w a s a ss ig n e d to r evi ew one of K ondas ’ s admi ni s tr at i ve compl ai nt s - - concl uded thatthe J une 2000 arbi tr at i on deci s i on r equi r ed the U SPS t o al l ow K ondas t o tr ai n atthe N C E D . ( A pp. at 2 8 3 -8 4 .) M o sie r a n d N C E D S u p e rv iso r Ja m e s D ik e s s tro n g lyd isa g re e d a n d c o n tin u e d to e n f o rc e th e N C E D tr a in in g b a r. ( A p p . a t 2 8 5 , 2 8 7 -9 3 .) W hi l e the N C E D barr emai ned i n eff ect , K ondas r ece i ved tr ai ni ng atl ocal fac i l i t i es . ( A pp. at103, 116, 135. ) Fol l ow i ng a tr ai ni ng s es s i on i n A pr i l 2004, K ondas compl et ed a c our s e eva l uat i on form , and w r ot e i n the C om m ent s Sect i on: “F*** y ou S tev e M o sie r, an d y o u r b u d d ies ? T e ll D u m b B * * * * * d I sa id H e llo ! L o o k F o rw a rd to Seei ng Y ou A l l ! ! ! ” ( A pp. at471. ) U pon l earni ng of K ondas ’ s not e, the N C E D T hr eat As s e s s me n tTe a m a g a i n d e t e r mi n e d th a th e s h o u l d “ NO T b e a l l o wed t o r e tu rn t o NC ED f o r tra in in g ” b e c a u se th e re w a s “ n o g u a ra n tee M r. K o n d a s [ w o u ld ] n o t ac t u p o n h is v e rb a l a n d w ri tte n th re a ts d u ri n g n o n -t ra in in g h o u rs .” (A p p . a t 4 7 2 .) III . In h is T h ird A m e n d e d C o m p lain t, K o n d a s a g a in a lleg e d th a t U S P S o f f icia ls v io la te d th e R e h a b ilita tio n A c t b yd is c ri m in a tin g a g a in s t h im b e c a u s e o f h is d is a b iliti e s .5

A pp. at57- 59; 29 U . S. C . §§ 791, 794. K ondas al s o al l eged thatfr om 2002 thr ough 2006, the U SPS r epea t edl ydeni ed hi s r eques t s forN C E D tr ai ni ng i n r et al i at i on forhi s fi l i ng of E E O c o m p la in ts . (A p p . a t 5 1 -5 2 .) O n M ay30 , 20 08 , the U S P S m ov ed fo r s um m aryj ud gm ent. In r espon se, K on das: ( 1) ar gued thathe had pr es ent ed s uffi ci entevi dence t o w arr anttr i al on hi s r et al i at i on c la im ; a n d (2 ) w ith d re w a ll o th e r c la im s . (A p p . a t 1 2 -1 3 .) O n Sept ember4, 2008, the D i s tr i ctC our tent er ed s um m aryj udgm enti n favorof the U SPS , rul i ng thatK ondas had nots how n thatthe l egi t i m at e, non- r et al i at oryr eas on for th e N C E D b a r - - K o n d a s ’s v io la tio n o f th e Z e ro T o le ra n c e P o lic y-- w a s p re te x tu a l. K o n d a s tim e ly ap p e a le d to th is C o u rt o n S e p te m b e r 2 5 , 2 0 0 8 . (A p p . a t 1 .) I V. Ou rr e v i e w o f

th e Di s tr i c tCo u r t ’ s d e c i s i o n i s p l e n a ry , a n d we a p p l yth e s a me s ta n d a rd a s th e D is tr ic t C o u rt to d e te rm in e w h e th e r s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t w a s a p p ro p ri a te . N o rfo lk S . R y . C o . v . B ase ll U S A Inc . , 5 1 2 F . 3 d 8 6 , 9 1 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 8 ). S u m m ary j udgm enti s appr opr i at e “i f the pl eadi ngs , the di s coveryand di s cl os ur e mat er i al s on fi l e, and anyaff

i davi t s s how thatther e i s no genui ne i s s ue as t o anym at er i al fac tand thatt he m o v an t i s en ti tl ed to jud g m en t as a m att er o f law . ” F ed . R . C iv. P. 56 (c). T he R ehabi l i t at i on A ctpr ohi bi t s di s cr i m i nat i on bas ed on di s abi l i tybyG overnm ent agen ci es ( i ncludi ng the U S P S ). 29 U . S . C . § 7 94 (a) . A n em ploy er m ayno tt ake ad verse empl oym entact i ons agai ns tan empl oy ee be caus e he ors he enga ges i n act i vi typr ot ect ed6

u n d e rth e Ac t , s u c h a s th e f i l i n g o f d i s c r i mi n a t i o n c o mp l a i n t s wi th th e EE OC. 3 4 C. F . R. § 1 0 0 . 7 (e); L au ren W . ex rel. Jea n W . v . D eF lam inis, 4 8 0 F . 3 d 2 5 9 , 2 6 6 n . 5 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 7 ). I n anal y zi ng r et al i at i on cl ai m s , w e appl ythe fol l ow i ng fr amew or k: T o estab li sh a p ri m a f

ac ie ca se o f re tal iat ion u n d er the [R eh ab il it ati o n A ct], a pl ai nt i ff musts how : ( 1) pr ot ect ed empl oy ee a ct i vi ty ; ( 2) adver s e ac t i on by the empl oy erei theraft erorcont empora neous w i th the empl oy ee’ s pr ot ect ed act i vi ty ; and ( 3) a ca us al connec t i on betw een the empl oy ee’ s pr ot ect ed act i vi tyand the empl oy er ’ s adver s e ac t i on . . . . I f an e m pl oy ee e s t abl i s hes a pr i m a fa ci e ca s e . . . the bur den s hi ft s t o the empl oy ert o advanc e a legiti m ate, no n -retal iat o ryrea so n fo r i ts ad v erse em p loym en t acti o n . . . . If the empl oy ers at i s fi es i t s bur den, the pl ai nt i ff mustbe abl e t o convi nce the fac t fi nderboth thatthe empl oy er ’ s pr oferr ed expl anat i on w as fal s e, and that r et al i at i on w as the r eal r eas on forthe adve r s e empl oym entact i on. K r ous e v. A m . St er i l i zerC o. , 126 F. 3d 494, 500 ( 3d C i r . 1997) ( ci t at i ons and quot at i ons o m itted). V. K ondas cont ends thathe pr oduced e vi dence s how i ng thatthe U SPS di d not “genui nel ybel i eve” thathe w as a s afe tythr eat , and thatr et al i at i on w as the r eal r eas on for the N C E D bar . W e do notagr ee. K ondas fi r s tar gues thatW heel er ’ s concl us i on thatthe 2000 arbi tr at i on deci s i on ent i t l ed K ondas t o r ece i ve N C E D tr ai ni ng demonstr at es pr et ext . I ti s undi s put ed that N C E D exec ut i ves t ook s tr ong i s s ue w i th W heel er . T he gr avamen of thatdi s agr eement c o n c e rn e d th e l e g a l e f

f e c to f th e 2 0 0 0 a rb i tr a t i o n d e c i s i o n , h o wev e r , n o twhe th e rNC ED s t aff genui nel ybel i eved thatK ondas w as a thr eat . T he exi s t ence of thi s l egal di s put e thus7

does notes t abl i s h t hatthe U SPS ’ s s t at ed r eas on forthe N C E D barw as “s o pl ai nl yw r ong thati tcannothave be en the . . . r eal r eas on. ” K el l erv. O r i x C r edi tA l l i ance , I nc. , 130 F . 3 d 1 1 0 1 , 1 1 0 9 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 7 ). K ondas al s o r el i es on evi dence thatthe U SPS di d noti m pos e an N C E D tr ai ni ng baron otherU SPS empl oy ees as s i gned t o the C ent erw ho had bee n i nvol ved i n drunken b raw ls or u sed d rug s. (A p p . at 16 5 -68 . ) U n li k e K o n d as, ho w ev er, th ese ind ividu als -- w ho r ece i ved di s ci pl i ne fr om thei rhom e off i ces , i ncl udi ng l ett er s of w arni ng, pl ace m ent on admi ni s tr at i ve l eave , and, i n one i ns t ance , t erm i nat i on - - di d notm ake r epea t ed and vi ol entthr eat s agai ns tN C E D s t aff , and s o w er e notvi ew ed as “cont i nui ng thr eat [s ] . ” ( A pp. at165- 66, 285. ) A ccor di ngl y , thi s evi dence does nots uppor tan i nfer ence of p retex t. S ee P ivir o tt o v . Inn o v ati v e S y s. , Inc . , 1 9 1 F . 3 d 3 4 4 , 3 5 9 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 9 ). K o n d a s n e x t ar g u e s th a t w h e n h e w ro te “ p a yb a c k is g u a ra n tee d ,” h e m e a n t o n ly that he w ou l d fil e gri evan ces. T his pos t - hoc expl anat i on i s notpr obat i ve of w hether NC E D p e r s o n n e l r e a s o n a b l yb e l i e v e d th a th e wa s a th r e a tt o th e i rs a f e ty . M o r e o v e r , we a gr e e w i th the D i s tr i c tCour ttha t“ bya do pt i ng a z e r o t ol e r a nc e po l i c y , [the U SPS] empow er ed i t s empl oy ees t o act , notj us ton thos e thr eat s thatcoul d be s how n t o be r eas onabl e orcr edi bl e, buton any threa t of v iolen ce . ” (A p p . at 30 -31 . ) T h e U . S . C o u rt of A ppeal s forthe Ei ghth C i r cui tcame t o a s i m i l arconcl us i on i n C l ark v. R uny on, 218 F. 3d 915 ( 8th C i r . 2000) . A ccor di ngl y , the cr edi bi l i tyevi dence K ondas offe r s does not d e m o n stra te p re tex t.8

Fi nal l y , K ondas ar gues thatr et al i at oryi nt entcan be i nferr ed fr om evi dence that U S P S p e rso n n e l su b

jec ted h im to “ sp e c ial s c ru tin y .” (A p p . at 1 5 9 , 2 0 7 , 3 4 8 .) In f a c t, thi s evi dence i s ent i r el ycons i s t entw i th the U SPS r es pondi ng t o the numer ous a d m in is tr a tiv e , u n io n , a n d E E O p ro te s ts K o n d a s f ile d f ro m 2 0 0 2 th ro u g h 2 0 0 7 . S e e , e .g ., W il li am s v . C erb ero n ics, 8 7 1 F . 2 d 4 5 2 , 4 5 7 (4th C ir . 1 9 8 9 ). I n s um , w e agr ee w i th t he D i s tr i ctC our tthatK ondas has fai l ed t o r ebutthe nonr e t a l i a t o ry r e a s o n th e U S P S a d v a n c e d f o rb a rr i n g h i m f

r o m N C E D tr a i n i n g . A c c o r d i n g l y, w e b eli ev e the C o u rtap p rop ri atelyg ran ted s u m m aryjud g m en t i n the U S P S ’s fa v o r. V I. Forthe r eas ons s t at ed, w e w i l l aff i r m the Sept ember4, 2008 O r derof the D i s tr i ct C o u rt.