The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
CAMDEN VICINAGE
a
SADIE BROWN, i HONORABLE KAREN M. WILLIAMS
{
Plaintiff,
Civil Action
Vv, No, 20-12657 (KMW-AMD)
POSTMASTER GENERAL LOUIS DEJOY, |
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Defendant, AND ORDER
i er ninco
WILLIAMS, District Judge:
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Defendant Postmaster General Louis DeJoy’s
Motion for Summary Judgment, (ECF No. 66); Plaintiff Sadie Brown opposed the motion, (ECF
No. 93); and Defendant’s replied, (ECF No. 101); the Court having heard the arguments of counsel
during the hearing held on March 10, 2025, and the Court noting the appearances of counsel:
Robert P. Merenich, Esq. for Plaintiff; Alex D. Silagi, Esq. for Defendant, Defendant’s Summary
Judgment Motion will be GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART,
WHEREAS, with regards to Claim 1, the Court found that, while the Administrative Judge
permitted Plaintiff to amend her complaint to add other incidents, the Court notes that, on their
face, the incidents amended to the 2010 EEOC matter are untimely and thus will not be permitted
to go forward. Of the six incidents’ that were properly exhausted before the EEOC, there were
three discrete acts that as a matter of Jaw cannot be considered in relation to the claim of a hostile
11, On or about January 6, 2010, Plaintiff arrived at work and was told to go to another station;
2. On or about January 7, 2010, and subsequent dates, Plaintiff’s assignment schedule was abruptly changed,
3, On an unspecified dates, Plaintiff's time card was taken when she was late,
4, On an unspecified dates, Plaintiff was removed from the work schedule withoul reason;
5, Effective November 6, 2010, Plaintiff's automatic step increase was deferred; and
6. On or about November 29, 2010, Plaintiffreceived a Letter of Warning for Failure to Follow Instructions. See SMF
125-126, Mot. for Summary Judgment al Ex. 49.
work environment: the incident on January 6, 2010, when Plaintiff arrived at work and was told to
go to another station, the letter of warning, and the step deferral. A “discrete act” constitutes a
separate actionable unlawful employment practice, which includes “termination, failure to
promote, denial of a transfer, or refusal to hire.” Percella v. City of Bayonne, No. 14-3695, 2020
WL 6559203 at *15 (D.N.J. Nov. 9, 2020) (quoting Nat’? RR. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536
U.S. 101, 122 (2002)). The Third Circuit recognizes “a bright-line distinction between discrete
acts, which are individually actionable, and acts which are not individually actionable but may be
aggregated to make out a hostile work environment claim.” O’Connor v. City of Newark, 440 F.3d
125, 127 Gd Cir, 2006), Therefore, summary judgment is granted as it relates to the three discrete
acts as noted above, The incidents that will be permitted to go forward as to Plaintiff’s 2010
retaliatory hostile environment claim are: on unspecified dates, when Plaintiff was removed from
the work schedule; on or about January 7, 2010, and subsequent dates, when Plaintiff's assignment
schedule was abruptly changed; and on unspecified dates when Plaintiffs time card was taken
when she as late.
WHEREAS, with regards to Claim 2, the Court found that disability discrimination is often
difficult to prove by overt acts due to the lack of witnesses, and in the instant matter the record
contains enough evidence from which a jury could plausibly infer that the plaintiff was subjected
to harassment on the basis of her disability. On the surface, Walton v. Mental Health Ass’n, 168
F.3d 667 (3d Cir. 1999), appears to be analogous. However, the Court notes that in the instant
matter, the frequency and duration of the alleged discriminatory conduct was more numerous and
over a longer span of time than in Walton, (see Walton, 168 F.3d at 667 n.4), and further the
testimony provided in the record from Plaintiff's colleagues sets apart Plaintiffs claims from those
in Walton, Therefore, the Court will deny summary judgment as to Claim 2.
WHEREAS, with regards to Claim 3, while the Court heard Plaintiff's argument asserting
that her request for light duty was presented before the District Reasonable Accommodation
Committee, ““DRAC”), the only available information within the record indicates that the request
for light duty was only presented in proceedings before the Office of Workers’ Compensation
Programs in 2022, and not through an EEO process or before the DRAC. See SMF Jf 192, 213;
Mot. for Summary Judgment at Exs. 101, 119; Opp. at Ex. C. If the light duty request was not
presented before the DRAC or brought appropriately through the EEO process, that claim would
be unexhausted and not properly before this Court for adjudication, Therefore, the Court will
provide Plaintiff with thirty days upon the issuance of this Order to provide the Court with record
evidence to demonstrate that Plaintiff's light duty request was presented before the DRAC.
For the reasons set forth on the record, within this memorandum, and for good cause
shown:
IT IS this Lot March 2025 hereby
ORDERED that Defendant Postmaster General Louis DeJoy’s Motion for Summary
Judgment (ECF No. 66) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.
ORDERED that, as to Claim 1 related to retaliation for EEO activity, the following
incidents will proceed to trial:
® Onor about January 6, 2010, Plaintiff arrived at work and was told to go to another
station;
® Onor about January 7, 2010, and subsequent dates, Plaintiffs assignment schedule
was abruptly changed;
□ Onan unspecified dates, Plaintiff's time card was taken when she was late;
For the following incidents, summary judgment is GRANTED:
e On an unspecified dates, Plaintiff was removed from the work schedule without
reason;
e Effective November 6, 2010, Plaintiff's automatic step increase was deferred; and
e On or about November 29, 2010, Plaintiff received a Letter of Warning for Failure
to Follow Instructions,
ORDERED that, as to Claim 2 related to Plaintiff's hostile work environment on the basis
of disability, summary judgment is DENIED; and
ORDERED that, as to Claim 3 related to Plaintiff's reasonable accommodation claims,
the Court gives Plaintiff leave of thirty days from the issuance of this Order to produce the evidence
necessary to demonstrate that the DRAC in fact received Plaintiff's request for light duty, per the
instructions provided both above and during the hearing by the Court. Ifthe Plaintiff fails submit
such evidence within the time allotted, summary judgment will be considered GRANTED WITH
PREJUDICE without further order of the Court.
/ me
“Tas Ss S Sphere
i EN M. WILLIAMS
United States District Judge