Opinion ID: 3029458
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Assigning a Lower Performance Rating

Text: Hare next claims a reasonable jury could find that her receiving a performance rating in 2001 that was lower than the one she had received in 1999 or 2000 was the result of retaliatory animus on the part of the Post Office. Hare, however, never fully develops this claim.6 In addressing it in her brief, she argues that the assignment of a lower 6 It is perhaps for this reason that the District Court did not explicitly address this claim in its opinion. 18 performance rating constitutes an adverse action, but she never directly addresses the issue of causation. See Hare’s Br. at 51-52. In her reply brief, she argues that her accomplishments during the review period merit a higher performance rating, and she asserts that “Defendant presents no evidence to contradict Hare’s explanations as to why she deserves a ‘Far Exceeds’ [rating].” See Hare’s Reply Br. at 25-27. First, we note Hare has the burden of establishing a prima facie case, which includes proving causation. Consequently, the Post Office need not present evidence refuting Hare’s claim until she establishes a causal link. Second, beyond her own speculation and the temporal proximity of her protected conduct and her receiving a review, Hare presents no convincing evidence on which a jury could reasonably conclude that she would have received a “Far Exceeds” had she not filed claims with the EEOC. She details her achievements of 2001, but does not explain whether these achievements are similar to or better than those for which she received higher performance ratings in 1999 and 2000. Also, Hare argues that because she received a 2001 mid-year rating of “Far Exceeds” from Reiss, she should have received a similar 2001 full-year rating from Ruth. Because, however, she started a challenging new assignment in Nazareth just after this mid-year rating period, it is not necessarily true that she performed as well in the second half of the review period as she did in the first. In sum, based on this record, we cannot say that Hare has presented sufficient evidence for a jury to find that her 2001 performance rating would have been higher had she not filed claims with the EEOC.