Opinion ID: 176714
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Vera's Claim

Text: We review for abuse of discretion the district court's ruling rejecting the application of equitable estoppel in Vera's case. Abraham v. Woods Hole Oceanographic Inst., 553 F.3d 114, 119-20 (1st Cir.2009) (reviewing district court's refusal to equitably toll the statute of limitations in Title VII case for abuse of discretion). It is undisputed that Vera failed to exhaust her administrative remedies in pursuing her claim against Morales. She argues, however, that the government should have been estopped from asserting her noncompliance with the exhaustion requirement in their defense because the EEO Office prevented [her] from filing a formal complaint due to procedural irregularities in dealing with her informal complaint. Specifically, she asserts that she did not know how or when to file a formal complaint because the EEO office did not follow the correct procedure in pursuing her informal complaint and failed to give her the required notice after it closed her informal complaint. Although the record supports Vera's contention that the EEO Office at Fort Buchanan did not comply fully with EEOC regulations when dealing with her informal complaint against Morales, it does not support her claim that she was unaware of how to pursue her claim, nor does it show that she diligently pursued her claim. Also, she has made no showing that she was actively misled into failing to file her claim such that the procedural irregularities by the government should estop it from asserting Vera's failure to exhaust her administrative remedies in its defense. The EEO Office failed to follow established procedures in two respects. First, it did not generate a settlement in writing and signed by both parties identifying the claims resolved, 29 C.F.R. § 1614.603, as is required if an agreement is reached resolving a complaint. [17] Additionally, the EEO Office did not notify Vera in writing of her right to file a formal discrimination complaint, as would have been required if the matter had not been resolved within thirty days of her first contacting the EEO Officer. See id. § 1614.105(d). Nevertheless, the record shows that Vera was, in fact, informed of the specific procedural steps involved in continuing to pursue her claim. The intake interview form filled out after Vera filed her informal complaint with the EEO officer reveals, and Vera does not deny, that she was provided with the handout entitled Rights and Responsibilities. Among other things, she was also specifically advised of [t]he pre-complaint, formal and/or class complaint process. In the face of such notice, Vera's claim that because of the government's actions she simply did not know how or when to file a formal complaint is unsupportable. Furthermore, as noted above, a plaintiff invoking estoppel must show that [s]he brought [her] action within a reasonable time after it became clear that any promised alternate remedy from an employer would not be forthcoming. Buttry, 68 F.3d at 1494. Here, Vera was given notice at the outset of the process that she was to be informed in writing, not later than the 30th day after contacting the EEO Office, of her right to file a formal discrimination complaint. She would then have fifteen days to file a formal complaint. Because of an apparent misunderstanding between the department and Vera about the settlement of her claim, she never received the notice of her right to file a formal discrimination complaint. As the government admits, given the EEO Office's failure to issue her that notice, the equities might have favored excusing some delay on Vera's part in filing her formal complaint. For almost three years after lodging her informal complaint against Morales, however, Vera took no steps to pursue her claim until she filed this lawsuit on August 7, 2006. The government's failure to memorialize properly the putative settlement of her claim against Morales, or to give proper notice of the absence of any settlement of that claim, does not justify that lack of diligence on Vera's part. Finally, Vera points to nothing in the record that would show that the EEO office had either an improper purpose or constructive knowledge of the deceptive nature of its processing of Vera's complaint, such that estoppel would be appropriate. Kale, 861 F.2d at 752. Although the procedures for closing her informal complaint were evidently bungled, this is not a case in which the office actively misled her about her rights or attempted to deceive her through false representations of its own actions. Compare Ott v. Midland-Ross Corp., 600 F.2d 24, 29-30 (6th Cir.1979) (finding estoppel may be appropriate when employer falsely assured employee that it would settle the claim by appointing him to a new position); Bonham v. Dresser Indus., Inc., 569 F.2d 187, 193 (2d Cir.1977) (finding estoppel potentially applicable when no notice of ADEA rights was posted and employer falsely indicated to employee that there would be another position for him within the company). To the contrary, Vera was given a statement of her rights from the outset and informed of them during her intake interview. The district court was well within its discretion in finding that Vera was not entitled to the benefit of equitable estoppel.
Title VII makes it unlawful for an employer to discriminate against any of his employees . . . because [s]he has made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under the Act. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a). In order to establish a prima facie claim of retaliation under Title VII, a plaintiff must make a showing (1) that she engaged in protected conduct, (2) that she suffered an adverse employment action, and (3) that there was a causal connection between the protected conduct and the adverse employment action. Soileau v. Guilford of Maine, Inc., 105 F.3d 12, 16 (1st Cir.1997). If a plaintiff makes out a prima facie case of retaliation (and there is no dispute on that issue here), a rebuttable presumption of unlawful retaliation arises and the burden shifts to the employer to articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its employment decision. Wright v. CompUSA, Inc., 352 F.3d 472, 478 (1st Cir.2003) (citation and quotation marks omitted); [18] see also McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802-804, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973) (establishing burden-shifting framework for Title VII cases). In order to rebut that presumption, the employer does not have the burden of persuasion, but must simply produce evidence of a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the employment action. Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 142, 120 S.Ct. 2097, 147 L.Ed.2d 105 (2000). The district court found, and we agree, that the government met its burden by producing evidence to show that Vera was fired for being insubordinate and failing to follow established leave procedures. Once the employer produces such evidence, the presumption drops from the case and the court must focus on the ultimate factual issue. U.S. Postal Serv. Bd. of Governors v. Aikens, 460 U.S. 711, 715, 103 S.Ct. 1478, 75 L.Ed.2d 403 (1983). Here, that issue is whether Vera has cited facts in the record from which a reasonable jury could conclude that she experienced an adverse employment action because she filed sexual harassment complaints against her employer. See Freadman v. Metro. Prop. and Cas. Ins. Co., 484 F.3d 91, 106 (1st Cir.2007) (proceeding directly to the question of causation and finding plaintiff's retaliation claim under the ADA must fail because no causal connection had been established between the adverse employment action and her protected conduct). Looking at the total package of proof offered by the plaintiff, Benoit v. Technical Mfg. Corp., 331 F.3d 166, 174 (1st Cir.2003), we find that Vera has not provided sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to conclude that she was fired, or experienced other adverse employment actions, because of her sexual harassment complaints.
As evidence of retaliation for her sexual harassment complaints, Vera cites a series of adverse events that took place between September 2004 and September 2005. Many of the actions she identifies as retaliatory, thus, occurred well after she filed her informal complaint against Morales in January 2003, but before she filed her first sexual harassment complaint against Rodriguez, in May 2005. If these incidents were caused by retaliatory animus at all, therefore, that animus could only be a response to Vera's complaint against Morales. The events Vera points to during this time period as examples of adverse actions taken in retaliation for the filing of her sexual harassment complaint are: (1) her relocation to a different office in the fall of 2004, (2) the discipline that she received after her altercation with Contreras (her supervisor prior to Rodriguez), and (3) Rodriguez's conduct towards her, including his repeated requests prior to May 19, 2005, the date he learned of her sexual harassment complaint against him, that she comply with established leave procedures. Vera's suggestion that she was relocated in retaliation for her complaint against Morales is belied by her own sworn deposition testimony, in which she agreed that her relocation was part of the resolution of her complaint. The altercation with Contreras took place nine months after Vera filed her complaint against Morales. She does not explain how that episode, which involved a person wholly unrelated to her harassment complaint, or the disciplinary action that resulted from the altercation, were related to the harassment complaint. Similarly, Vera points to nothing in the record to suggest that Rodriguez's behavior was connected to her complaint against Morales. Vera cites no evidence suggesting that Rodriguez knew about Vera's complaint against Morales prior to December of 2005, when he was informed of it as part of the investigation of the complaint against himself. Rodriguez was not Vera's supervisor at the time she filed her complaint against Morales and Vera points to no evidence that he was ever present in the building where Vera and Morales worked or connected with the Morales complaint in any way. It would, therefore, be impossible for a rational jury to conclude that Rodriguez's actions from October 2004 through mid-May 2005, which were taken in ignorance of Vera's sexual harassment complaint against Morales, were motivated by his desire to retaliate against her for those complaints.
Vera cites the close temporal proximity between Rodriguez being informed of Vera's sexual harassment complaint against him on May 18, 2005 and his decision to change her leave status from Leave Without Pay to AWOL on May 23, 2005 as evidence of retaliation. As we have cautioned in the past, however, [t]iming may bear on the question of causation in a retaliation claim, but . . . a `narrow focus [on timing may] ignore[ ] the larger sequence of events and also the larger truth.' Freadman, 484 F.3d at 100-01 (quoting Soileau, 105 F.3d at 16). In this instance, the larger sequence of events reveals that Rodriguez had been corresponding with his human resources advisor about Vera's absences since January, that in February he had monitored Vera's movements when she was at the office and wrote her a letter of counseling relating to her December/January absence, and that earlier in May he had issued Vera a notice of proposed suspension due to her failure to follow established leave procedures. Rodriguez's decision to change Vera's absence to AWOL, however poorly explained, is consistent with his previous actions, which show that he was focused on her lack of proper documentation for that absence, that he had requested additional documentation, and that he had warned Vera that she could be suspended for her failure to comply with established leave procedures. In the same May memorandum in which he changed the status of her December/January absence, Rodriguez changed Vera's March absence from AWOL to Leave without Pay, further contradicting the theory that he was acting out of a desire to punish Vera for filing her harassment complaint. Given the series of adverse actions Rodriguez took in response to Vera's December/January absence, it would not be reasonable for a jury to conclude, based only on the temporal proximity of one of those adverse actions to the date on which Rodriguez learned of the complaint, that the action was motivated by retaliatory intent. Vera's remaining claims of adverse actions suffer from the same infirmity, namely, a lack of causal connection with her sexual harassment complaint. The additional events Vera cites all occurred late in the summer of 2005, when she had been absent for several months. As described previously, Vera was suspended in early August for being AWOL after being informed a week earlier that her continued absence was in violation of established leave procedures. In late August, she was called back to work in a letter warning that her numerous absences were unreasonable and that she must report to duty or provide medical documentation identifying duties which can be performed and current limitations, despite a note from her doctor stating that she was not ready to return. Finally, after returning to work briefly, she suffered a breakdown. After being absent again for almost a month, she was fired. It is undisputed that Vera did not report to work from late March 2005 until she was requested to return in late August 2005. Her hours absent far exceeded her hours worked for the first eight months of 2005. Her supervisors were clearly perturbed by Vera's absences and the record shows that they discussed how to deal with a situation in which an employee was not reporting to work and had not had her leave officially approved by management. There is, admittedly, a factual dispute over whether Vera was or was not complying with the intricacies of established leave procedures. That dispute, however, is not material to Vera's claim of retaliation for her sexual harassment complaint. The requests that Vera provide more extensive documentation of her illness and of what work functions she could no longer carry-out began with Rodriguez's request in February 2005, when he knew nothing of her complaint against Morales and before her complaint against him. The activity of her supervisors in discussing what to do about her absence over the summer, once she had been absent for several months, is wholly consistent with Rodriguez's initial communications with human resources about Vera and with his initial memoranda to Vera herself demanding additional documentation for her absences and cautioning her about the potential consequences of her failure to comply. Moreover, Vera's altercation with another supervisor, Contreras, in September 2004, supports the government's proffered explanation for her firingnamely, that she was absent without leave and had been insubordinate.