Opinion ID: 3029458
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Failing to Select for CMP

Text: Hare first claims the Post Office retaliated against her by not selecting her for the Career Management Program. She argues this is a materially adverse action because the program “is designed to train and fast-track employees with leadership skills into management-level positions.” Hare’s Br. at 10. She also argues that the timing of her being rejected by Burke for the program—just four days after he had met with Hare about the incident with McCullough—casts suspicion on Burke’s motives. The Post Office argues Hare was not negatively affected by being excluded from the program, as the CMP is not a requirement for advancement. It further argues it had a nondiscriminatory reason for not selecting her: Burke limited his selection to individuals who were in a higher job “level” than Hare. Applying the pre-Burlington Northern standard, the District Court found Hare’s exclusion from the CMP did not rise to the level of an adverse employment action. In light of Burlington Northern, however, we find Hare’s failure to be selected a “materially 5 Hare also claims that the Post Office retaliated against her by not placing her “in Acting POOM positions or advanced OIC assignments.” Hare’s Br. at 51-52. Because Hare does not further elaborate or discuss these claims, we do not consider them. 14 adverse” action. An email to Hare’s manager from a CMP coordinator describes the program as follows: “The Managerial Skills program provides participants strategies for managing USPS operations and the workforce. During the course the participants engage in a variety of learning activities and develop a draft IDP.” App. at A486. In addition, Burke himself explained that the program helps participants “enhance their skills,” and when asked whether the program is a stepping stone to advancement, he said, “It’s important.” App. at A299, A968. Given how the program may “contribute[] significantly to [an] employee’s professional advancement,” we find not being selected for it is a “materially adverse” action. Burlington, — U.S. at —, 126 S.Ct. at 2415. Viewing all of the facts in Hare’s favor, we also find Hare has shown a causal connection between her not being selected for the CMP and her discussing her sexual harassment complaint with Burke. First, these two events occurred just four days apart, establishing “temporal proximity.” Second, Hare presents evidence that Burke had a reason to retaliate against her—Burke knew when he made the CMP decision that she would continue to pursue her claim in direct contravention of Burke’s advice that she drop it. During her meeting with Burke, Hare claims Burke told her to “keep [her] mouth shut,” and Burke admits that he told Hare that she had “nothing to gain” by pursuing her claim any further. App. at A42, A308. At the end of their meeting, however, Burke admitted that he knew Hare was not satisfied with his response and would not likely follow his advice. He explained, “I had hoped that that would be the end of it, but from talking to her and the way she conveyed to me, I could tell that she was not happy or 15 satisfied with that.” App. at A307. Third, Hare presents evidence that Burke expressly threatened to retaliate against her if she pursued her claim. She claims Burke told her he would order a “random audit” of her Post Office by the Inspection Service if she did not drop her claim. App. at A42. Finally, as we explain below, Hare presents evidence that Burke may not have strictly relied on objective criteria in selecting CMP attendees, as he maintains. On these facts, we conclude Hare establishes a causal connection between her protected conduct and her not being selected for the CMP. Accordingly, she establishes a prima facie case. The Post Office argues Burke’s decision was based on objective criteria and not on any retaliatory animus against Hare. Specifically, it claims when Burke and his direct reports met to discuss potential candidates, they only considered people who had a job level of 19 or 20. Since Hare had a job level of 18, she was excluded. Hare argues this is pretext, pointing to the inclusion of an employee with a job level of 16 in an email from Burke summarizing who he and his staff had selected. The Post Office argues, however, that the lower level employee included in the email actually reported to Burke’s peer and that this peer, and not Burke, selected this employee. Hare disputes the Post Office’s explanation, pointing to the language in Burke’s email that introduces the list of employees selected for the program (which included the lower level employee): “As a result of yesterday’s discussion at staff meeting, these are the folks that were suggested to be signed up . . . .” App. at A491. In no way does the email indicate that the lower level employee was not considered during Burke’s staff 16 meeting, and Burke admits that his peer did not attend this meeting. App. at A491, A968. In addition, it appears as if a person who directly reported to Burke, not his peer, emailed him a list with the lower level employee’s name on it. App. at A490. Given these discrepancies, a reasonable jury could rationally find the Post Office’s asserted nonretaliatory reason unworthy of credence. Accordingly, we must reverse the District Court and remand this claim for disposition on the merits.