Opinion ID: 780416
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Nature of Claims Against Postal Service

Text: 19 We also conclude that the district court erred in granting summary judgment to the Postal Service because it incorrectly construed in a number of ways that Jensen's claims did not present issues of material fact. First, the district court misinterpreted Jensen's claims against the Postal Service. The district court failed to consider that Jensen's claims were against the Postal Service for not ending the harassment by the co-workers and not just claims against the co-workers for harassment. The district court noted that Jensen's main contention was that the Postal Service maintained a pervasive system of discrimination at the Prairiewood Station and that this system persists to the present[.] (Add. at 8.) However, the district court viewed Jensen's claims as an attempt to exempt[] her from the time requirements of Title VII. Id. We disagree with the district court's view of Jensen's argument. Instead, we view Jensen's claims similar to those in Swenson v. Potter, 271 F.3d 1184 (9th Cir.2001). 20 In Swenson, the Postal Service argued that Swenson, a mail sorter, failed to contact an EEO counselor within forty-five days, rather Swenson waited fifty-three days to allege harassment based on a grabbing incident by her co-worker. 271 F.3d at 1190-91. The Ninth Circuit determined that the grabbing incident is not `the matter alleged to be discriminatory.' Id. at 1191. Instead, the author of the opinion, Judge Alex Kozinski, emphasized that Swenson's claims were against the Postal Service in failing to act on her allegations of harassment. Id. (The matter alleged to be discriminatory is the adequacy of the employer's response, not the co-worker's underlying behavior.). The court held that the forty-five day period thus did not start to run until the employer took final action on her complaint. Id. The court determined that Swenson's claim was timely because she contacted an EEO counselor before the Postal Service had concluded its investigation. Id. 21 In several respects this case also is similar to McFarland v. Henderson, 307 F.3d 402 (6th Cir.2002). In McFarland, a female temporary postal employee claimed she was constructively discharged as a result of sexual harassment, when her immediate supervisor attempted to kiss her. Id. at 404. For several months after the incident, the supervisor was rude to her. Id. In addition, McFarland learned that unfounded rumors were being spread that she was sleeping with other male postal employees, and other rumors about her alleged attitude problem. Id. McFarland reported the rumors to a supervisor above the harasser. Approximately three months after the attempted kiss, McFarland contacted an EEO counselor. Id. at 405. The Postal Service alleged that McFarland's claim was untimely because she contacted the EEO more than forty-five days after the attempted kiss. Id. 22 The Sixth Circuit, applying the Morgan hostile work environment analysis, determined that McFarland's claims were timely. Based on Morgan, [a] hostile-work-environment claim thus has an effect similar to that of a continuing violation composed of successive discrete acts, in that the existence of the hostile work environment within the 45-day time limit causes the actionable violation to encompass conduct that occurred outside of the limit. Id. at 408. The court concluded that McFarland's hostile work environment existed less than forty-five days before her EEO contact because her treatment amounted to an environment permeated with unfounded lies about her alleged sexual promiscuity, her competence as an employee, her being assigned to less desirable work assignments, and having her hours reduced. Id. 23 Similarly, Jensen's claims of discrimination may extend beyond her last day of work to the time when Jensen was on leave and the Postal Service failed to address her concerns. The allegations in Jensen's complaint charge that the Postal Service violated Title VII by failing to take appropriate corrective action in response to her allegations of co-worker harassment. The matter alleged to be discriminatory is the adequacy of the Postal Service's response, not Jensen's co-worker's underlying behavior. In essence, Jensen asserts that although she was physically absent from her worksite more than forty-five days before formalizing her EEOC complaint, she remained an employee and that she could not actually return to her workplace because of the failure to remedy the sexually harassing environment.