Court Opinion

ID: 2964815
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:31:31.749714+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:03:24.509430
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                           UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                ____________________
       No. 96-1950
                                  JEAN M. RANDLETT,
                                Plaintiff, Appellant,
                                         v.
                            DONNA E. SHALALA, SECRETARY,
                      DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,
                                Defendant, Appellee.
                                ____________________
                    APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
                   [Hon. Douglas P. Woodlock, U.S. District Judge]
                                ____________________
                                       Before
                                Boudin, Circuit Judge,
                           Aldrich, Senior Circuit Judge,
                              and Lynch, Circuit Judge.
                                ____________________
            Robert Le Roux Hernandez for appellant.
            Lori 
                J. 
                   Holik, 
                         Assistant 
                                  United States Attorney, with whom Donald K.
       Stern, United States Attorney, was on brief for the United States.
                                ____________________
                                    July 10, 1997
                                ____________________

                 BOUDIN, Circuit Judge.  This appeal brings to the  court
            the 
               most 
                    recent chapter in a 20-year quarrel between a federal
            department 
                      and 
                         its 
                             former employee, Jean Randlett.  It presents
            an 
              important 
                        legal 
                             issue 
                                   concerning the reach of the protection
            afforded by  Title VII of  the Civil Rights  Act of 1964,  42
            U.S.C. S 2000e  et seq.   We hold  that Title  VII can  offer
            protection  against a  retaliatory  refusal  to  transfer  an
            employee,  but  that  no   evidence  existed  here  to   show
            retaliation.
                                         I.
                 Because Randlett's claims  were resolved against her  on
            summary  judgment, we  state  the  facts in  the  light  most
            favorable 
                     to 
                        her. 
                             
                             Sargen
                                   t v. Tenaska, Inc., 108 F.3d 5, 6 (1st
            Cir. 1997).  In 1975, Randlett worked in Denver in the Office
            of Civil Rights  of the Department  of Health, Education  and
            Welfare 
                   as 
                      an 
                        equal 
                              opportunity specialist with a civil service
            grade  of GS-12.   She  applied for  a promotion  to a  GS-13
            position 
                    in 
                       Denver 
                             but 
                                 was denied promotion in favor of another
            candidate.   A few  months  later, in  August 1975,  she  was
            terminated.  
                 Randlett  filed a  complaint with  the Equal  Employment
            Opportunity 
                       Commission, 
                                  alleging discrimination based on gender
            and national origin  (she is white and of European  descent).
            Six 
               years 
                     later, the EEOC ruled in her favor, finding that the
            record  showed  "[n]o   other  credible   reason  for   [her]
                                         -2-
                                         -2-

            nonselection  . . .  other than the  fact that the  selecting
            official wanted to insure that the Hispanic male was  awarded
            the GS-13 position."  It found that Randlett's discharge  was
            similarly motivated by discriminatory animus.  In particular,
            the EEOC  found that the  official who considered  Randlett's
            promotion 
                     had applied pressure on the selecting panel to alter
            its 
               rankings, which favored Randlett, so that the job could go
            instead to a friend of the selecting official.
                 The  EEOC's 1981  order  directed  the  Department,  now
            metamorphosed 
                         into 
                             Health and Human Services ("HHS"), to cancel
            Randlett's 1975  discharge  and  to  "immediately  reinstate"
            Randlett  in  the  Denver  office  as  an  equal  opportunity
            specialist, 
                       grade GS-13.  The order also awarded Randlett back
            pay  and  other  entitlements   for  the  period  since   her
            termination, 
                        and 
                           it 
                              required HHS to report within 30 days as to
            the 
               steps 
                     it 
                        planned to take to implement the required action.
                 In late  June  1981, Randlett  began  what would  be  an
            extensive exchange  of  telephone calls  and  correspondence,
            primarily with  Thomas Jefferson,  an HHS  official based  in
            Washington, 
                       D.C., who was apparently charged with coordinating
            Randlett's  reinstatement.   She  also talked  with  Patricia
            Taphorn,  a personnel  official in  the Denver  office.   The
            upshot, 
                   according to Randlett, was an agreement that she would
            return 
                  to 
                     the payroll of the HHS Denver office as of August 9,
                                         -3-
                                         -3-

            1981, but by using four weeks of accumulated leave, would not
            actually report for work until early September 1981.
                 According 
                          to 
                            both 
                                 Randlett and Taphorn, Jefferson was very
            difficult to reach over the course of the summer and did  not
            act quickly enough to  confirm this understanding, nor  would
            anyone else in the Washington office take responsibility  for
            doing 
                 so. 
                      
                      We 
                        pass 
                             over 
                                  the details, but there is no indication
            that 
                anything other than bureaucratic sloth was the cause.  In
            any 
               event, 
                      in August 1981, Randlett signed a contract with her
            then-current employer, the Barnstable, Massachusetts,  school
            system, 
                   extending her employment there for an additional year.
                 Not  long afterwards,  Randlett received  a letter  from
            Jefferson, confirming that she  was reinstated in the  Denver
            office  as  of  September  1981;  he  also  referred  to  the
            possibility 
                       of a transfer to another regional office, but said
            that  this was  not certain.   Further  telephone calls  were
            exchanged, 
                      and 
                         the 
                             matter was still unresolved in October 1981,
            when Randlett's father became  seriously ill.  Randlett  then
            told 
                Jefferson that she would need to stay in Massachusetts to
            care for her father.
                 After 
                      further 
                             confusion, 
                                        Randlett in February 1982 secured
            from 
                another 
                       HHS 
                           official in Washington a temporary "detail" to
            a Boston HHS office, effective March 1, 1982, for a period of
            not  more than  120 days.   The  official--Betty Lou  Dotson,
            director of the Office for Civil Rights--wrote Randlett  that
                                         -4-
                                         -4-

            the 
               detail 
                      was 
                         "granted 
                                  to accommodate your personal situation"
            and 
               concluded 
                         by 
                           saying 
                                  that "I trust this detail will give you
            the opportunity to attend to your personal responsibilities."
                 Randlett resigned from  her schoolteaching position  and
            began 
                 working 
                         in 
                           the 
                               Boston HHS office in March 1982.  By then,
            her 
               father 
                      had 
                         died, 
                               but 
                                   her aging mother's health was failing.
            Randlett also claims that,  almost immediately, she began  to
            experience problems  in  the  Boston HHS  office  because  of
            inadequate training on work assignments, that she received  a
            "low satisfactory" ranking in an evaluation, and that she was
            listed 
                  at 
                     a 
                      GS-12 
                            level 
                                  in Boston (even though she continued to
            receive a GS-13 salary).  
                 According to Randlett, Jefferson called her in May  1982
            and asked her when she planned to return to Denver.  Randlett
            replied 
                   that 
                        she thought her position in Boston was permanent,
            but in  June 1982, she  sent a letter  to HHS in  Washington,
            requesting 
                      a 
                        permanent assignment to the Boston office, saying
            "this 
                 is 
                    an 
                       unusual request, but probably no more unusual than
            the six and a half years of injustices" that she had endured.
            It appears that Randlett also had a telephone conversation on
            the subject with Bart Crivella, Jefferson's supervisor.
                 In 
                   early 
                         July 
                             1982, 
                                   the 
                                       request was answered in writing by
            Nathan  Dick, the  deputy director  of the  Office for  Civil
            Rights.  Dick's  letter denied the transfer request but  said
            that HHS was willing to extend the temporary detail in Boston
                                         -5-
                                         -5-

            until 
                 September 
                          30, 
                              1982, with Randlett returning on October 1,
            1982, to her "permanent duty station in Denver."  The  letter
            explained:
                 [I]t 
                     is 
                        not 
                            possible for the Office for Civil Rights
                 to 
                   offer 
                         you 
                             a permanent assignment in Boston.  Your
                 requested 
                          assignment and subsequent detail to Boston
                 was 
                    a 
                      temporary action taken only to accommodate you
                 during 
                       the 
                           adjustment period after the death of your
                 father. . . .   However, the recent RIF actions  in
                 the 
                    regions 
                            and the continuing ceiling and budgetary
                 constraints   have   eliminated   practically   any
                 potential 
                          options for this office [in Washington] to
                 assign you  to  the Boston  office on  a  permanent
                 basis.
                 In September, Randlett received another letter from Dick
            requesting 
                      her 
                          to 
                            report 
                                   for work in Denver on October 1, 1982.
            Randlett 
                    then 
                         filed 
                              a 
                                complaint with the EEO officer in Boston,
            alleging 
                    that 
                        Washington 
                                   officials were retaliating against her
            "for having filed a previous complaint in Denver . . .  which
            was resolved in my favor."  Randlett's new complaint named as
            the 
               persons 
                       who had retaliated against her Jefferson, Dick and
            Crivella.
                 Instead 
                        of 
                           reporting 
                                    to 
                                       work in Denver on October 1, 1982,
            Randlett arranged  to use accrued  leave credits  to stay  in
            Boston for  the remainder  of the  year.   In November  1982,
            Randlett's prospective  supervisor in  Denver, Alex  Aguilar,
            confirmed 
                     the request for leave from October 1 to December 31,
            1982; but the letter also said that Aguilar expected Randlett
            to report  for work  on January 3,  1983, and  that he  would
                                         -6-
                                         -6-

            consider 
                    any 
                        request for further leave to be "unreasonable and
            not in the best interests of our organization."   
                 Randlett then asked Aguilar for leave-without-pay status
            after December 1982.  Aguilar refused, saying that Randlett's
            "prolonged" absence was detrimental to his office.   Randlett
            then 
                asked 
                      for 
                         sick 
                              leave.  Aguilar wrote that the agency might
            be 
              able 
                   to 
                     make 
                          health-related accommodations for her in Denver
            so long  as she documented her  ailments; but some two  weeks
            later Aguilar told Randlett that the documents she  submitted
            were not adequate.  In March 1983, Randlett resigned,  saying
            that it  was done  involuntarily to  prevent any  "additional
            harassment" from Aguilar  or "any  other further  retaliatory
            acts."
                 Randlett's 
                           September 1982 complaint--directed against the
            three named Washington officials--was originally rejected  by
            HHS on the ground that  it was untimely, but this ruling  was
            reversed by  the EEOC in 1985.   Incredibly, the ensuing  HHS
            internal investigation  lasted over seven  years.  In  August
            1992, an HHS administrative law judge denied Randlett's claim
            of retaliation.   His  denial was  sustained by  the EEOC  in
            November 1993.
                 In 
                   December 
                            1993, Randlett filed her present complaint in
            the federal district court under Title VII.  The core of  the
            complaint 
                     was 
                        that 
                             "[a]lthough HHS had full power and authority
            to 
              assign 
                     plaintiff a permanent position in the Boston office,
                                         -7-
                                         -7-

            it unreasonably refused to do so in order ultimately to force
            plaintiff 
                     to 
                        resign." 
                                 
                                 The complaint attributed this refusal to
            retaliation for Randlett's successful 1975 complaint  against
            the department, saying that hardship transfers were routinely
            granted to individuals with  hardship requests similar to  or
            less serious than Randlett's.
                 Randlett 
                         also charged that she had been given an improper
            "low satisfactory" performance rating and inadequate training
            in Boston.  She asked for "[r]einstatement to her position in
            Boston" with back pay and benefits and reimbursement for some
            health insurance premiums and out-of-pocket medical expenses.
            She 
               also 
                   sought 
                          compensatory and punitive damages of $1 million
            each.
                 After a  period  of  discovery, HHS  moved  for  summary
            judgment. 
                      
                      It argued that the denial of permanent transfer was
            not 
               an 
                  adverse employment action under Title VII, and that the
            agency 
                  had 
                      made 
                          an 
                             effort to accommodate Randlett's requests by
            granting  a temporary detail  to Boston but  that it was  not
            required  to go further.   HHS also  supplied the court  with
            correspondenc
                        e and a transcript of Randlett's testimony in the
            EEOC's recent investigation.
                 Randlett 
                         responded 
                                  with 
                                       her own version of events and also
            submitted 
                     affidavits from HHS employees attesting that HHS did
            approve 
                   hardship 
                           transfers with some regularity, and suggesting
            that she could  have been accommodated in the Boston  office.
                                         -8-
                                         -8-

            The most dramatic affidavit was submitted by an EEOC employee
            who 
               had 
                   previously worked in the Denver HHS office.  According
            to 
              the 
                  affiant, in the spring of 1982 he had been talking with
            Aguilar about a GS-13 position in the Denver office and asked
            if it was going to be filled permanently and if so, by  whom.
            The affidavit continued:
                 Alex  Aguilar told  me "That  position [cannot]  be
                 filled 
                       permanently until the matter of Jean Randlett
                 is resolved, but I  am going to make sure that  she
                 does not come to Denver.  We are going to put a lot
                 of  pressure on  her  so  she will  not  return  to
                 Denver."
                 On June  5, 1996, the  district judge  issued a  29-page
            memorandum 
                      and 
                         order 
                               granting HHS' motion for summary judgment.
            The decision dealt in different ways with Randlett's  various
            claims, as will appear from our own discussion.  The decision
            went some distance in the direction that HHS had urged in its
            original 
                    motion, holding that "rejection of Randlett's request
            to 
              continue 
                       to stay in Boston for personal reasons is not a[n]
            adverse action cognizable by federal law."
                                         II.
                 A grant of summary judgment is subject to de novo review
            on appeal, and this includes any claim that the evidence made
            out a material issue of fact that precludes summary judgment.
            Sargent
                  , 
                    108 
                        F.3d at 6.  Before addressing the central issue--
            the denial of Randlett's request for a transfer to Boston--we
            consider 
                    briefly, and then put to one side, certain rulings by
            the district court that require no extended treatment.
                                         -9-
                                         -9-

                 In the district court, Randlett urged that she had  been
            "promised"  a permanent  transfer  to  Boston  by  Jefferson.
            Assuming arguendo  that such a  "promise" might receive  some
            special protection, the district court carefully reviewed the
            pertinent proffers  of  evidence,  especially  the  documents
            exchanged  between Randlett  and the  Washington office,  and
            concluded  that no  reasonable jury  could find  that such  a
            promise had been made.  Without repeating the details,  which
            are set forth in the district court's decision, we agree with
            this ruling.
                 The district  court also made  short work of  Randlett's
            claim that  she had received  inadequate training in  Boston,
            saying 
                  that 
                       even if this were true, there was no evidence that
            it was based upon a  motive to retaliate against her for  her
            earlier complaint.  "At most," the district judge ruled, "the
            evidence shows that the  Boston assignment was an  awkwardly-
            designed and  temporary  expedient  to  accommodate  Randlett
            pending 
                   her 
                       return 
                             to 
                                the duty station [Denver] directed by the
            1981 EEOC decision."  This ruling also is well supported.
                 The 
                    district 
                             court 
                                  also 
                                       rejected Randlett's claim that she
            was improperly listed  as a GS-12 employee in Boston,  saying
            that this was not an adverse employment action since Randlett
            continued 
                     to 
                        be 
                          paid 
                               at 
                                  the GS-13 level.  We affirm this ruling
            on a narrower ground:   no evidence exists that this  alleged
            Boston-office "error" was motivated by a desire to  retaliate
                                        -10-
                                        -10-

            against Randlett  for filing a  complaint seven years  before
            against 
                   a 
                     different HHS office.  Whether in some other case an
            inaccurate listing could be an adverse action under Title VII
            need not be pursued here.  
                 The 
                    central 
                            issue is HHS' refusal to transfer Randlett to
            the 
               Boston 
                      office.  The district court said that this was "not
            a[n] adverse action  cognizable by federal law," but it  also
            said that not  even a "scintilla  of evidence" supported  the
            claim 
                 "that 
                       the agency retaliated against Randlett by refusing
            to 
              provide 
                      a 
                        permanent transfer to Boston for hardship reasons
            or to extend her temporary detail."  These are two  different
            reasons, one relating to law and the other to fact.
                 The 
                    more 
                         difficult 
                                  of 
                                     the two is the legal question:  what
            types of employer actions adverse to the employee can,  where
            improperly 
                      motivated, give rise to a Title VII complaint.  The
            district  judge, arguably  supported  by  references  in  the
            decisions of a few other courts, accepted HHS' argument  that
            the refusal  of a lateral transfer  to another office of  the
            agency does  not rise to the  level of an adverse  employment
            action compensable  under  Title  VII--even if  done  for  an
            improper motive.
                 The  statute  itself  says  that  an  employer  may  not
            "discriminate" against an employee or applicant "because [the
            employee 
                    or 
                       applicant] has made a charge . . . or participated
            in 
              any 
                  manner" in a Title VII investigation or proceeding.  42
                                        -11-
                                        -11-

            U.S.C. 
                  S 
                    2000e-3(a). 
                                
                                Elsewhere, the statute lists actions that
            can 
               constitute discrimination, specifying a refusal to hire, a
            discharge, or any  discriminatory treatment  with respect  to
            "compensation, 
                          terms, 
                                conditions, or privileges of employment."
            Id. S 2000e-2(a).  Arguably, the two sections should be  read
            together.
                 Even so, "terms,  conditions, or  privileges" is  pretty
            open-ended 
                      language.  It obviously includes opportunities that
            are not strictly entitlements, Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467
            U.S. 69, 75-76 (1984) (promotion to partner); and a number of
            cases have extended coverage  to slights or indignities  that
            might seem  evanescent, e.g., McKenzie  v. Illinois Dep't  of
            Transp., 92  F.3d 473, 484  (7th Cir.  1996) (employee  given
            tedious 
                   minor duties); Aviles-Martinez v. Monroig, 963 F.2d 2,
            6 (1st Cir. 1992) (daily ridicule in clients' presence).
                 On occasion, disadvantageous transfers have been treated
            as 
              potentially 
                         within 
                                the scope of Title VII.  E.g., Collins v.
            Illinois
                   , 
                     830 F.2d 692, 702-04 (7th Cir. 1987) (citing cases).
            The main authority cited by the district court, Haimovitz  v.
            United States  Dep't of Justice, 720  F. Supp. 516 (W.D.  Pa.
            1989), 
                  aff'd
                       ,
                         902 F.2d 1560 (3d Cir. 1990), did reject a claim
            where the employee had been transferred to another  location;
            but 
               while 
                     the 
                        opinion 
                                is 
                                   not crystal clear, the main reason was
            apparently 
                      a 
                        failure to show an illegal motive. Id. at 525-27.
                                        -12-
                                        -12-

                 Here, the claim concerns a refusal to transfer, arguably
            less intrusive than  involuntary relocation.  But  Randlett's
            affidavits make clear  that at HHS  a permanent transfer  for
            hardship 
                    reasons is a common enough practice and so arguably a
            "privilege" 
                       of 
                         employment.  For Randlett, the transfer here was
            doubtless as important as a promotion.  Assuming an  improper
            motive, 
                   it 
                      is hard to see why denial of a hardship transfer in
            this case could not  be discrimination under Title VII.   See
            Bauman
                  
                  v. 
                     Blo
                        ck, 940 F.2d 1211, 1229 (9th Cir.), cert. denied,
            502 U.S. 1005 (1991).
                 No doubt construing the statute in this manner opens the
            way  to  whimsical claims  by  employees  who  earlier  filed
            complaints and are now aggrieved by slights.  Possibly, there
            is room for a de minimis threshold, Williams v. Bristol-Myers
            Squibb Co., 85 F.3d  270, 274 (7th Cir. 1996), and  certainly
            good reason to insist on firm evidence of improper motive  by
            the employer.   But  given the  impact on  Randlett, and  her
            affidavits about customary practice, we cannot accept the HHS
            view 
                that 
                     a 
                       refusal to transfer is automatically outside Title
            VII.
                 We turn, therefore, to the district court's  alternative
            ground, namely, the lack of a "scintilla of evidence" to show
            retaliation. 
                         
                         To 
                           make 
                                out a retaliation claim requires not only
            an 
              adverse 
                      employment action and previously protected conduct,
            but 
               also 
                    a 
                      colorable showing that "a causal connection existed
                                        -13-
                                        -13-

            between 
                   the 
                      protected 
                                conduct and the adverse action."  Fennell
            v. 
              First 
                    Step Designs, Ltd., 83 F.3d 526, 535 (1st Cir. 1996).
            In 
              other 
                    words, 
                          the 
                              adverse action must have been taken for the
            purpose of retaliating.   And to  defeat summary judgment,  a
            plaintiff must  point to some  evidence of  retaliation by  a
            pertinent decisionmaker.  Id.
                 The 
                    denial 
                           of 
                             a 
                               permanent transfer to the Boston office is
            the  principal decision  challenged  by Randlett,  and  every
            indication 
                      is 
                         that 
                             this 
                                  decision was made by the HHS Office for
            Civil 
                 Rights 
                       in 
                          Washington.  Randlett's request was made to the
            Washington  office  and  denied  by  the  Washington  office.
            Randlett herself wrote to  the Boston EEO officer a few  days
            after filing her complaint to say that the concern was  "with
            the 
               actions 
                       of OCR [Office of Civil Rights] in Washington, not
            Denver." 
                     
                     See
                         generally Long v. Eastfield College, 88 F.3d 300
            (5th Cir. 1996).
                 It was thus  incumbent on Randlett, to justify trial  on
            this 
                issue, 
                       to 
                         point 
                               to 
                                  some evidence to show that officials in
            the Washington establishment had refused a permanent transfer
            to retaliate against  Randlett for her  1975 complaint.   See
            Mesnick  v. General Elec.  Co., 950 F.2d  816, 822 (1st  Cir.
            1991), 
                  cert. 
                        denied, 504 U.S. 985 (1992).  This need to show a
            connection exists whether Randlett was seeking to make out  a
            prima 
                 facie 
                       case 
                           or 
                              by 
                                 independent evidence challenging the HHS
            explanation  as pretext  and urging  independent evidence  of
                                        -14-
                                        -14-

            discrimination.  Fennell, 83 F.3d at 535.  The latter is  the
            better 
                  perspective 
                             since 
                                   (even before the lawsuit began) Dick's
            letter did  explain  HHS'  reasons for  denying  a  permanent
            transfer.
                 The 
                    difficulty for Randlett is that there is virtually no
            evidence  that HHS  officials in  Washington acted  out of  a
            retaliatory 
                       motive 
                             in 
                                denying the permanent transfer to Boston.
            Randlett's 
                      main 
                          argument 
                                   for inferring an improper motive--that
            is, a connection  to her previous complaint--is based on  her
            affidavits about HHS practice in granting hardship transfers.
            If HHS handed out transfers as a matter of course whenever an
            employee showed a hardship need, it might well be  suspicious
            were Randlett alone singled out for a denial.
                 But 
                    in 
                       fact 
                            there 
                                 is 
                                    no 
                                       showing that in denying Randlett's
            request, 
                    HHS 
                        was departing from its usual practice.  Carefully
            read, all that the  affidavits say is that HHS often  granted
            hardship transfers in similar  cases; there is no  indication
            that HHS granted  them invariably and  without regard to  the
            convenience of  the agency.   And  in this  instance HHS,  in
            denying 
                   Randlett's request, explained that reductions in force
            ("RIFs") 
                    and 
                        budget 
                              cuts 
                                   had reduced its flexibility and it was
            not convenient to the agency to transfer Randlett permanently
            to Boston.
                 Randlett's only  other  evidence is  several  affidavits
            describing 
                      reassignments and hires within the Boston office in
                                        -15-
                                        -15-

            or  around  1982.    This  confirms  that  there  were   some
            reassignments
                         (due, at least in part, to the RIFs mentioned in
            Dick's letter) and at least one new hire for a GS-12 position
            after Randlett's resignation.  But nothing in the  affidavits
            shows retaliation  against  Randlett.   At  most,  one  might
            conclude that  some  other mix  of reassignments  might  have
            produced a  GS-13  position for  Randlett, doubtless  to  the
            disadvantage of some other employee.
                 Whatever  inference  might be  drawn  from  any  of  the
            affidavits 
                      has 
                          to 
                            be 
                               set 
                                   against other facts.  However careless
            Jefferson  may  have  been  in  arranging  Randlett's  timely
            reassignment to Denver,  higher officials in  Washington--who
            were responsible  for  refusing the  permanent  transfer--had
            helped Randlett from the start, both by securing a  temporary
            position in Boston and by deferring her start date in Denver.
            Taking everything  together, no basis  exists for  a jury  to
            conclude that the  permanent transfer was denied in order  to
            retaliate.
                 Our  causation analysis  would  be  quite  different  if
            Randlett's claim related to  Aguilar's action in refusing  to
            grant an additional temporary delay to Randlett to permit her
            to delay reporting to duty in Denver in early 1983.  The tone
            of 
              Aguilar's 
                       alleged 
                               remarks, quoted above, might create a jury
            issue as  to  Aguilar's  own motive  in  refusing  Randlett's
            requests to him.  This is so even though, absent the remarks,
                                        -16-
                                        -16-

            the Denver  office had good  reason for  wanting Randlett  to
            report 
                  to 
                    duty 
                         (apparently, it was paying for Randlett's detail
            to Boston and had to leave her permanent position unfilled).
                 We need not  decide this issue because Randlett has  not
            complained of the Denver office's denial of further temporary
            deferrals  in   her  reporting  date.     Rather,  her   1982
            administrativ
                        e complaint, which was the condition precedent to
            this lawsuit, see 42 U.S.C. S 2000e-5(f), is directed at  the
            Washington 
                      officials' denial of a permanent transfer.  That is
            the 
               relief 
                      she seeks in the district court.  No claim was made
            concerning 
                      Aguilar's denial of a further temporary deferral of
            her return to Denver.
                 The   statutory    regime   requiring   exhaustion    of
            administrative 
                          remedies 
                                  itself precludes any effort by Randlett
            at this late date to develop and pursue a new charge directed
            against Aguilar's own conduct in refusing further  deferrals.
            Lattimore
                     
                     v. 
                        Polaroid Corp., 99 F.3d 456, 464 (1st Cir. 1996).
            Nor is this some slip  of the pen:  everything in  Randlett's
            situation makes clear that  the central grievance relates  to
            Washington's  denial  of  a  permanent  transfer  to  Boston.
            Accordingly, Aguilar's  actions  in  Denver,  whatever  their
            motive,  would not support  a trial of  the only claims  that
            Randlett has made and preserved.
                 No one  can view  with  pride HHS'  record of  delay  in
            investigating this case or fail to sympathize with Randlett's
                                        -17-
                                        -17-

            predicament--
                        a job in one city and an aging parent in another.
            At oral argument, we  forcefully urged the parties to seek  a
            settlement and  asked  them  to use  our  court's  settlement
            program, delaying  this decision until  we were advised  that
            efforts 
                   at 
                      settlement had failed.  It will now be obvious that
            both sides would have gained through a settlement.  
                 In sum, we affirm the decision of the district judge  on
            the grant of summary judgment, although our reasoning differs
            in certain respects, and we decline to order costs for either
            side.  It  appears from the briefs  and oral argument that  a
            ministerial 
                       issue 
                            relating to the calculation of certain health
            insurance 
                     benefits due to Randlett remains to be resolved.  We
            therefore  remand the  case to  the district  court for  this
            limited purpose.
                 It is so ordered.
                                        -18-
                                        -18-