# Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Schoo v. United States Postal Service > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385002_0825%3A1 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Petition for Writ of Certiorari - **Published:** January 1, 1989 - **Citation:** 491 U.S. 904 ## Text \ Supreme UOurt, wes a a) FILED 88-125 no JOSEPH E. SPANIOL, Je SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED ania No. ia ost October Term, 1988 TEDDYANNE SCHOO, Petitioner, vs. U. S. POSTAL SERVICE; JOHN C. HOLMES; CHARLES T. HALL; JASPER GRADY; WILLIAM G. FELAND; WILLIAM DODSON; WARREN BLOOMBERG, Respondents. PETITION FOR CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT MARK ERIC HERMAN 14 W. Madison St. Baltimore, MD 21201 (301)837-2144 Counsel for Petitioner No. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES October Term, 1988 ee TEDDYANNE SCHOO, Petitioner, VSe U. S. POSTAL SERVICE; JOHN C. HOLMES; CHARLES T. HALL; JASPER GRADY; WILLIAM G. FELAND; WILLIAM DODSON; WARREN BLOOMBERG, Respondents. PETITION FOR CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT A) QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW Is notice of the institution of civil liti- gation on the supervisory employee of the Petitioner sufficient notice in order to allow Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c) to relate back an Amended Com- plaint adding the proper party, Postmaster General, and to allow such action to be considered a timely filing within the requiements of 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e-16(c). Given actual and timely notice, albeit to Petitioner’s supervisor, and not the Postmaster General, and given the Postmaster General did not show one oita of prejudice, whether the opinion below is in direct conflict with the liberal notice requirements imported into the remedial discriminatory law statutes, as enunciated in Schiavone v. Fortune, 477 U.S. 21, 106 S.Ct. 2379, 1986. Also see: Cooper v. United States Postal Service, 4/1 U.S. 1022, (Dissent of Judge White). B) PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING At the commencement of this action, Teddyanne Schoo was Plaintiff and U. S. Postal Service, John C. Holmes, Charles T. Hall, Jasper Grady, William G. Feland, William Dodson and Warren Bloomberg were Defendants. At the Appellate level, the Appellant was the Petitioner and the Appellee was the Respond- ent. 6 Watts attain % 1) 2) C) TABLES TABLE OF CONTENTS QUESTION PRESENT FOR REVIEW....cececeee PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDINGS....csccccees TABLES TABLE OF COmtentSecsccccccccccccccccece Table of Authorities: ee ee ee ae a eo Statutes, Rules and Regulations..eccseee REFERENCE TO THE OFFICIAL REPORTS BELOW Cec hac ch ace becdeeeeeceences STATUTES AND REGULATIONS IN THE PRESENT ae aa ee wen ee ees CONCISE STATEMENT OF THE CASE....ccccce ARGUMENTS OUTLINING THE REASONS RELIED UPON FOR THE ALLOWANCE FOR THE WRIT.... De ee oegaeenesnebeccdeececéecerve CERTIFICATE OF DUT RUieasss steeds eseaee (jj (eee ctes kd a bbe oes 6 dees eee 6 8ee Schoo v. U. S. Postal Service, United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, No. 88-156 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Balanciere v. United States Postal Service, 648 F. Supp. 38, 40 (D.Colo. 1984)......... - 3- 21 22 18 Bruce v. Smith, 581 F.Supp. 902, 906 (W.D. Va. 1984) ccccccccccccccccccccccoces 15, 18 Cooper v. United States Postal Service, 471 U.S. 1022 (Dissent of Judge White)....... 2, 13, 17 Dutka v. Southern Railway Co., 92 F.R.D. 375, 377 (N.D. Ga. 1981) .coccccccccesccceccce 18 Eatkins v. Read, 710 F.2d 184, 187 (4th Cir. 1983) ccccccccccccccccccccccccs 15 Faulkner v. Bolger, 655 F.Supp, 717 (E.D. Ark. 1987) ccccccccccccccccccccccces 13 Gonzales v. Department of the Air Force, 110 FRD 350 (N.D. Tex. TFSSPccccececseseccses 16, 17 Hendrix v. Memorial Hospital of Galveston County, 776 F.2d 1255 (5th Cir. 19B5) ecccccccccccccce 15, 19 Hernandez Jimenez v. Calero Toledo, 604 F.2d 99, 102-03 (lst Cif. EOFS heceosecsesecece 18, i9 Hornsby v. United States Postal Service, 787 F.2d 87, 91 (3rd Cif « EPOO) 66sbbecedenece 14 Kirk v. Cronvich, 629 F.2d 404, 408 (5th Git. 1980) cccccccccccccccccccsccscccs 15, 18 McGuiness v. United States Postal Service, 744 F.2d 1318 (7th Cir. > eee 13 Ramirez v. Burr, 607 F.Supp. 170, 173 (D.C. Tex. 1984) ccccccccccccccccccccccccccccce 18 Schiavone v. Fortune, 477 U.S. 21, 106 S.Ct. 2379 (1986) .ccccccccccccccccccscccccccce as 12, 15, 16, 19 Williams v. Hidalgo, 663 F.2d 183, 187 [PuGe Cire 1980) cccccccccccccccccccccecs 13, 14 Wood v. Worachek, 618 F.2d 1225, 1230 (7th Cir. it. ) PP PrrrrrrrrrrrrreyrTrrTrriy. 19 «i> ee ee ee Tk. ee Statutes, Rules and Regulations 42 U.S.C. Section 2000(e)-l6c Civil Rule of Federal Procedure 15(c) D) REFERENCE TO THE OFFICIAL REPORTS BELOW The Honorable Judge Joseph C. Howard of the United States District Court dismissed this action with prejudice for failure to name a proper party Defendant. On December 21, 1987, a Motion to Alter Amend Judgment Request for Hearing was filed and the Motion was denied January 12, 1988. The case was not reported in an official text. The Appellant decision, decided December 27, 1988 was unpublished. E) JURISDICTION The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U.S.C. Section 1251(4). F) STATUTES AND REGULATIONS INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT ACTION Rule 15. Amended and Supplemental Pleadings (a) Amendments. A party may amend the partys pleading once as a matter of course at any time before a responsive pleading is served or, if the pleading is one to which no responsive pleading is permitted and the action has not been placed upon the trial calendar, the party may so amend it at any time within 20 days after it is served. Otherwise a party may amend the party’s pleading only by leave of court or by written consent of the adverse party; and leave shall be freely given when justice so requires. A party shall plead in response to an amended pleading within the time remaining for response to the original pleading or within 10 deys after service of the amended pleading, whichever period may be the longer, unless the court otherwise orders. {c) Relation Back of Amendments. Whenever the claim or defense asserted in the amended plead- ing arose out of the conduct, transaction, or - occurrence set forth or attempted to be set forth in the original pleading, the amendment relates back to the date of the original plead- ing. An amendment changing the party against whom a claim is asserted relates back if the foregoing provision is satisfied and within the period provided by law for commencing the action against the party to be brought in by amendment that party (1) has received such notice of the institution of the action that the party will not be prejudiced in maintaining his defense on the merits, and (2) knew or should have known that, but for a mistake concerning the identity of the proper party, the action would have been brought against the party. - 6- The delivery or mailing of process to the United States Attorney, or the United States Attorney’s designee, of the Attorney General of the United States, or an agency or officer who would have been a proper defendant if named, satisfies the requirement of clauses (1) and (2) hereof with respect to the United States or any agency or officer thereof to be brought into the action as a defendant. 2. Section 2000e-16. Nondiscrimination in Federal Government employment (a) Discrimination prohibited. All personnel actions affecting employees or applicants for employment (except with regard to aliens employed outside the limits of the United States) in military departments as defined in section 102 of title 5, United States Code, [5 USCS Section 102] in executive agencies (other than the General Accounting Office) as defined in section 105 of title 5, [5 USCS Section 105] United States Code (including employees and applicatants for employment who are paid from nonappropriated funds), in the United States Postal Service and the Postal Rate Commission, in those units of the Government of the Dis- trict of Columbia having positions in the competitive service, and in those units of the legislative and judicial branches of the Fed- eral Government having positions in the compe- titive service, and in the Library of Congress shall be made free from any discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. (b) Role of Civil Service Commission; com- pliance of departments and agencies with rules and regulations. Except as otherwise provided a J «= in this subsection, the Civil Service Com- mission shall have authority to enforce the provisions of subsection (a) through appro- priate remedies, including reinstatement or hiring of employees with or without back pay, as will effectuate the policies of this sec~ tion, and shall issue such rules, regulations, orders and instructions as it deems necessary and appropriate to carry out its responsibili- ties under this section. The Civil Service Commission shall-- (1) be responsible for the annual review and approval of a national and regional equal employment opportunity plan which each depart- ment and agency and each appropriate unit referred to in subsection (a) of this section shall submit in order to maintain an affirma- tive program of equal employment opportunity for all such employees and applicants for employment; (2) be responsible for the review and evaluation of the operation of all agency equal employment opportunity programs, periodically obtaining and publishing (on at least a semi- annual basis) progress reports from each such department, agency, or unit; and (3) consult with and solicit the recommen- dations of interested individuals, groups, and organizations relating to equal employment opportunity. The head of each such department, agency, or unit shall comply with such rules, regulations, orders and instructions which shall include a provision that an employee or applicant for employment shall be notified of any final action taken or any complaint of discrimination filed by him thereunder. The plan submitted to each department, agency, and unit’ shall include, but not be limited to-- =o §« (1) provision for the establishment of training and eduction programs designed to provide a maximum opportunity for employees to advance so as to perform at their highest potential; and (2) a description of the qualifications in terms of training and experience relating to equal employment opportunity for the principal and operating officials of each such depart- ment, agency, or unit responsible for carrying out the equal employment opportunity program and of the allocation of personnel and resources proposed by such deparment, agency, or unit to carry out its equal employment opportunity program. With respect to employment in the Library of Congress, authorities granted in this sub- section to the Civil Service Commission shall be exercised by the Librarian of Congress. (c) Civil action by party aggrieved. Within thirty days of receipt of notice of final action taken by a department, agency, or unit referred to in subsection 717(a) [subsec. (a) of this section], or by the Civil Service Commission upon an appeal from a decision or order of such department, agency, or unit on a complaint of discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex oor national origin, brought pursuant to subsection (a) of this section, Executive Order 11478 or any succeed- ing Executive orders, or after one hundred and eighty days from the filing of the initial charge with the department, agency, or unit of with the Civil Service Commission on appeal from a decision or order of such department, ~ 9 « agency, or unit until such time as final action may be taken by department, agency, or unit, an employee or applicant for employment, if aggrieved by the final disposition of his com- plaint, or by the failure to take final action on his complaint, may file a civil action as provided in section 706 [42 USCS Section 2000e-5], i: which civil action the head of the department, agency, or unit, as appropriate, shall be the defendant. (d) Application of certain provision. The pro- visions of sections 706(f) through (k) [42 USCS Sections 2000e-5(f)-(k)}, as applicable, shall govern civil actions brought hereunder. (e) Continuing responsibility of agencies and officials to assure nondiscrimination. Nothing contained in this Act [title] shall relieve any Government agency or official of its or his primary responsibility to assure nondiscrimina- tion in employment as_ required by the Constitution and statutes or of its or his responsibilities under Executive Order 11478 relating to equal employment opportunity in the Federal Government. (July 2, 1964, P. L. 88-352, Title VII, Section 717, as added Mar. 24, 1972, FP. Le. 92-261, Section 11, 86 Stat. 111.) G) CONCISE STATEMENT OF THE CASE On May 13, 1987, Petitioner brought suit against the United States Postal Service and various supervisory employees pursuant to Article 47, Section 2000e-l6(c) of the United States Code. The - 10 - a United States Postal Service filed a motion to dismiss the claim for failure to name the proper party. Petitioner sought leave to amend _ the complaint and a ruling that the amended complaint should relate back under Rule 15(c). The Trial Court below denied Petitioner”s motion for leave to amend and dismissed the complaint with prejudice. On February 5, 1988, an Appeal was timely noted to the 4th Circuit. Petitioner, TEDDYANNE SCHOO, timely filed administrative charges of employment discrimination against her employer, the United States Postal Service, with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in January, 1982. After pursuing her grievance through the appropriate administrative hearings, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued a final decision of "no discrim- ination." However, the initial opinion sent to Petitioner was incomplete. The corrected decision was forwarded to Appellant on April 21, 1987. - lJ] - On May 13, 1987, Petitioner filed suit against the United States Postal Service and the employees who were involved in the alleged acts of discrim- ination against her. Petitioner’s supervisor, John Holmes, was served with notice of the suit on May 23, 1967 The Trial Court below dismissed the complaint with prejudice. The Appellant Court affirmed, erroneously holding that insufficient notice was given by service of notice on Petitioner’s super- visor to satisfy Schiavone, despite -no showing of actual prejudice. H) ARGUMENTS OUTLING THE REASONS RELIED UPON FOR THE ALLOWANCE FOR THE WRIT Petitioner strongly urges that a Writ of Certiorari should be granted in this case because Schiavone v. Fortune, 477 U.S. 21, 106 S.Ct. 2379 (1986) is being misapplied, an extremely shorter time requirement is defeating meritorious liti- gation, Federal Rule 15(c) is being misapplied, and - 12 - nt Oks Pacer i the se ACRE Pinta Rha net ae aacntdiiniatseatinsnttinsssainsll Maer baer tena“ because the dissent in Cooper opened the door for a case, such as this, where actual notice was given to alleviate the harsh results of Cooper and McGuiness ve. United States Postai Service, 744 F.2d 1318 (7th Cir. 1984). The dissent in Cooper noted that "there is no unanimity among the Circuits concerning the proper interpretation of Rule 15(c)“s notice provision." 471 U.S. at 1024. Title VII, Section 717 of the Civil Rights Act provides that "within thirty days of receipt of notice of final action" an aggrieved party may file a civil action. Final notice includes notification of the right to sue and notification of the time limit within which the action must be filed. Williams v. Hidalgo, 663 F.2d 183, 187 (D.C. Cir. 1980). The grounds for the agency action are also an important part of the notification process. See, Faulkner v. Bolger, 655 F.Supp. 717 (E.D. Ark. 1987). Here, the final notification of the decision of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission was - 13- not received by Petitioner until after the Com- mission issued their corrected decision on April 21, 1987. The statutory period does not begin to run until Petitioner has received proper notification of the agency action. Williams v. Hidalgo, 663 F.2d 183, 188 (D.C. Cir. 1980), Hornsby v. United States Postal Service, 787 F2d 87, 91 (3rd Cir. 1986). The thirty days began to run from April 24, 1987 (including the three days provided for mail delivery under Rule 6[e]). John Holmes, Petitioner”’s former supervisor and an employee of the United States Postal Service, received notice of the institution of the suit by service effected on May 23, 1987, which was within the thirty day period. After naming the wrong parties as defendants in the matter, Petitioner sought leave to amend the pleadings and a ruling that the amended pleadings related back under Rule 15(a) and 15(c). Four factors must be satisfied in order to permit an amendment to relate back to the original pleadings. The basic claim must have arisen out of the conduct o 14 = Seca set forth in the original pieading. The added party must have received such notice that it will not be prejudiced in maintaining its defense on the merits. The party must have or should have known that but for a mistake, the action would have been brought against him. Finally, the last two requirements must have been fulfilled within the _ prescibed limitations period. Schiavone v. Fortune, 477 U.S. 21, 106 S.Ct. 2379, 2384 (1986). Informal notice of the commencement of the action or constructive notice is sufficient to satisfy the notice require- ments of Riled 15(c). Kirk v. Cronvich, 629 F.2d 404, 408 (5th Cir. 1980); Bruce v. Smith, 581 F. Supp. 902, 906 (W.D. Va. 1984). Notice need not be effected by service of process. Eatkins v. Read, 710 F.2d 184, 187 (4th Cir. 1983). It may be inferred where the named defendant has identity of interests with the added party or is an agent for the added party. See, Kirk v. Cronvich, supra; Hendrix v. Memorial Hosptial of Galveston County, 776 F.2d 1255 (5th Cir. 1985). - 15 - Notice of the suit to Petitioner’s supervisor, Postal employee John Holmes, should be considered as notice to the Postmaster General, relying on the fact that the case of Gonzales v. Department of the Air Force, 110 FRD 350 (N.D. Tex. 1986) was reversed upon the Court”s reconsideration of it in light of Schiavone v. Fortune, 477 U.S. 21, 106 S.Ct. 2379 (1986). Gonzales v. Department of the Air Force, 638 F.2d 1323, 1325 (N.D. Tex. 1986). The Supreme Court, in Schiavone v. Fortune, made it clear that in order for a complaint to relate back under Rule 15(c), the added party must have received notice of the institution of the proceedings within the prescribed time period. Schiavone v. Fortune, 477 U.S. 21, 106 S. Ct. 2379, 2384 (1986). The District Court, in Gonzales v. Department of Air Force, 638 F. Supp. 1323 (N.D. Tex. 1986) granted Defendants” motion to dismiss because neither the Department of the Air Force nor the United States Attorney had been notified within the thirty day period. The Court did not reverse its earlier reasoning that » §6 = notice to a lesser agency official would be con- sidered notice to the head of the agency. Gonzales ve. Department of the Air Force, 638 F. Supp. 1323, 1325 (N.D. Tex. 1986). The Appellant Court relied on the case of Cooper v. United States, 740 F.2d 114, 715 (9th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 105 S.Ct. 2034 (1985) in rejecting Petitioner’s argument. That case is singularly not applicable here. In Cooper, no one was timely notified of the impending civil litigation within the thirty day period. In the case at bar, notice of the civil suit was served on a supervisory employee of the United States Postal Service within the thirty day time period. The employee participated in all of the grievance proceedings on behalf of the United States Postal Service and acted with the authority of the Postal Service and, hence, the head of the agency. Clearly, an employee who had the authority to fire and defend against an employment discrimination grievance proceeding has the authority to receive - 17 - notice of the civil litigation when the aggrieved employee was unsatisfied with the results of those proceedings. See, Kirk v. Cronvich, 629 F2D 404, 407 (5th Cir. 1980); Balanciere v. United States Postal Service, 648 F. Supp. 38, 40 (D.Colo. 1984). The purpose of Rule 15(c) is to prevent the Statute of limitations fror. barring an action where the wrong party was sued but where the correct party had sufficient notice of the commencement of the action. Dutka v. Southern Railway Co., 92 F.R.D. 375, 377 (N.D. Ga. 1981). Sufficiency of the notice must be evaluated in light of the policy objectives of the statute of limitations, which include avoiding undue surprise and permitting investigation and collection of evidence while it is still fresh. Ramirez v. Burr, 607 F. Supp. 170, 173 (D.C. Tex. 1984). Identity of interests between the original and added parties is an appropriate guide in meas- uring the possible prejudice that could be incurred by the added party. See, Bruce v. Smith, 581 F. Supp. 902, 906 (W.D. Va. 1984); Hernandez Jimenez v. - 18 « Calero Toledo, 604 F2d 99, 102-03 (lst Cir. 1979); Wood v. Worachek, 618 F2d 1225, 1230 (7th Cir. 1980); Hendrix v. Memorial Hospital of Galveston County, 776 F2d 1225, 1228 (Sth Cir. 1985). The "linchpin" of the relation back rule is notice, either formal or informal, within the prescribed time period. Schiavone v. Fortune, 477 U.S. 21, 106 S.Ct. 2379, 2385 (1986). Here, the Postmaster General had notice of the institution of the civil suit through notice of the suit to its employee, John Holmes. The Postmaster General did not personally participate in the decision to discharge Petitioner. His only know- ledge of the events necessarily must come from his employee--the man who made the decision to discharge Petitioner, who fully participated in the investiga- tion of Petitioner”’s complaint of discrimination at the administrative level, and the man who was timely notified of the institution of the civil action. - 19 - CONCLUSION Either FRCP 15(c) is going to be liberally con- strued, or it is not. It is unfair for litigants in some circuits to have their day in Court, while others suffer seeing their cases dismissed. Dis- missal is not required in this case. Timely notice was sent to a key supervisory employee with an identity of interest. No prejudice has been shown. Relating back should be favored where the statute of limitations is as short as 30 days. Relating back should be formed where the litigant seeks to remedy a discriminatory art, where rectification benefits the public as whole. Respectfuly submitted, Ya [Mhraete MARK ERIC HERMAN 14 W. Madison Street Baltimore, MD 21201 837-2144 Counsel for Petitioner - 20 - CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this a7 day of CHenuatyr , 1989, three copies of the above Petition for Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit and Appendix were mailed first class, postage pre-paid, to Brecken- ridge C. Wilcox, United States Attorney, Office of the United States Attorney, 101 W. Lombard Street, 8th Floor, United States Court House, Baltimore, Maryland 21201; Roann Nichols, Assistant United States Attorney, United States Court House, 101 W. Lombard Street, Baltimore, Maryland 21201-2692; Jesse L. Butler, Assistant General Counsel; David G. Karro, Esquire, Office of Labor Law, Room 6414, 475 L°Enfant Plaza, Washington, DC 20264. Vig. Wd \ Mawr. Rue MARK ERIC HERMAN -~ 21 - UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 88-1556 TEDDYANNE SCHOO Plaintiff - Appellant Ve U.S. POSTAL SERVICE; JOHN C. HOLMES; CHARLES T. HALL; JASPER GRADY; WILLIAM G. FELAND; WILLIAM DODSON; WARREN BLOOMBERG Defendants - Appellees Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Joseph C. Howard, United States District Judge. (CA-87- 1216JH). Argued : November 1, 1988 Decided: December 27, 1988 Before WINTER, Chief Judge, and MURNAGHAN and SPROUSE, Circuit Judges. Barbara Lynn Matthews for Appellant. David George Karro (Jesse L. Butler, Assistant General Counsel, Office of Labor Law, U.S. POSTAL SERVICE; Breckin- ridge L. Willcox, United States Attorney, Roann Nichols, Assistant United States Attorney, on brief) for Appellees. - 92 « —o—_—— er PER CURIAM: Teddyanne Schoo appeals the judgment of the district court dismissing her title VII action against the United States Postal Service, John C. Holmes, Charles T. Hall, Jasper Grady, William G. Feland, William Dodson and Warren Bloomberg. The district court effectively denied Schoo’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(c) motion to amend her complaint to name the Postmaster General as a defendant by dismissing it because the Postmaster General was not so named as required by statute. We affirm. Schoc filed a complaint before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in 1982 alleging discrimination in her termination from her job in the Baltimore Post Office. In 1985, she appealed the unfavorable decision within the EEOC, which determined that Schoo had no cognizable claim and so advised her in a letter of April 9, 1987, which she received on April 13.1 The EEOC also advised her l The last paragraph of the Analysis and Find- ings section of the EEOC letter to Schoo ended in mid-sentence. Through her attorney, she advised them of that defect on April 14, and she received a corrected letter, dated April 21, om April 24. = 93 = that she had thirty days from the date of receipt to file an action in district court. In Schoo’s original district court complaint filed on May 13, 1987, she named the United States Postal Service and six individuals as defendants. One of those individuals, John C. Holmes, was her immediate supervisor in Baltimore. Schoo”’s com- plaint was mailed to several defendants on May 22, 1987. Holmes received his copy on May 23. To com- plete her action against the Postal Service, Schoo mailed the summons and complaint to the Baltimore Postmaster on May 22. He received them on May 27. Schoo filed an amended complaint on October 26, 1987 2 It is evident from Schoo”’s complaint that she intended service on the Baltimore Postmaster as service on the Postal Service. However, since the Baltimore Postmaster did not receive the summons and complaint until more than thirty days after either EEOC letter, Schoo relies on her service of Holmes as furnishing the requisite notice to the Postmaster General. —) a naming the Postmaster General as a defendant pur- suant to Rule 15(c). This, of course, was beyond the thirty-day limitation period even if that period started upon receipt of the second EEOC notifica- tion. In Schoo’s rule 15(c) motion, however, she asked that the ameded complaint relate back to May 13, 1987, the date she filed her original compJaint. The district court, ruling that the Postmaster Gen- eral had not received the required rule 15(c) notice of the original complaint, disallowed the amended complaint and dismissed the action. On appeal, Schoo contends that, under Rule 15(c), service on Holmes, her supervisor at the Baltimore post office, was sufficient notice to the Postmaster General that the action was pending against him. The language of title VII requires that, in actions brought against government agencies, "the head of the department, agency, or unit, as appro- priate, shall be the defendant." 42 U.S.C.A. Section 2000e-16(c) (West 1981). Actions brought against the Postal Service must name the Postmaster - 25 - General as a defendant. McGuiness v. United States Postal Service, 744 F.2d 1318, 1322-23 (7th Cir. 1984); Cooper v. United States Postal Service, 740 F.2d 714, 176 (9th Cir. 1984°%, cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1022 (1985). In a notice attached to the decision it forwarded to Schoo, the EEOC adviser her that: - « « [T]he attached decision in your case is final. You have the right to file a civil action in the appropriate United States District Court WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS from the date that you receive this decision... . You are further notified that if you file a civil action, YOU MUST NAME THE APPROPRIATE OFFICIAL AGENCY OR DEPARTMENT HEAD AS THE DEFENDANT. Rule 25(d)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that you may describe the defendant by official title rather than by name. Failure to provide the NAME OR OFFICIAL TITLE of the agency head or, where appropriate, the depatment head, may result in the loss of any judicial redress to which you may be entitled. (Please note: For this purpose, Department means the overall national organ- ization, such as the now defunct Department of Health, Education and Welfare, not the local administrative department where you might work.) You must be sure that the proper defendant is named when you file your civil action. —. = Rule 15(c) provides in part: An amendment changing the party against whom a claim is asserted relates back if ... , within the period provided by law for commenc- ing the action against the party to be brought in by amendment that party (1) has received such notice of the institution of the action that the party will not be prejudiced in main- taining his defense on the merits, and (2) knew or should have known that, but for a mistake concerning the identity of the proper party, the action would have been brought against the party. "The linchpin [of rule 15(c)] is notice..." Schiavone v. Fortune, 477 U.S. 21, 31, (1986). Even if we were to use April 24, 1987 as the date the thirty-day period began to run, and thereby eliminate any timeliness problem regarding service on the substitute party, see Schiavone, id., Holmes was not an adequate substitute for the Postmaster General. We cannot construe the notice requirement of Rule 15(C) so liberally as to hold that notice of an action against the head of a huge organization such as the Postal Service can be effected by naming and serving a minor supervisory employee far removed from the cental commnand and from any organizational » 37 ~ structure through which the department head ordin- arily responds to litigation. The Postal Service is organized in such a way that [t]he General Counsel of the Postal Service shall act as agent for the receipt of legal process against he Postal Service, and as agent for the receipt of legal process against... all .. . officers and employees of the Postal Service ..« -« 39 C.F.R. Section 2.2 (1988). Although we would not assume that all postal employees are aware of that regulation, its promulgation certainly represents a reasonable exercise of the postmaster’s discretion. Short of correct service through designated channels, the postmaster would be placed on notice so as to satisfy the requirement of rule 15(c) by other appropriate service. Rule 15(c) provides: The delivery or mailing of process to the United States Attorney, or the United States Attorney’s designee, or the Attorney General of the United States, or an agency or officer who would have been a proper defendant if named, satisfies the requirement of clauses (1) and = @ « (2) hereof with respect to the Unites States or any agency or officer thereof to be brought into the action as a defendant. See also rule 4(d)(5), which provides that service on any agency of the United States may be obtained by delivering a copy of the summons and complaint to the United States Attorney for the district in which the action is brought, or to his assistant or designee, and mailing the same to the Attorney General and the agency. The above quoted language of Rule 15(c) designating specific officials, upon whom service would comprise adequate rule 15(c) notice, is obviously not exclusive and implies that service on some other officials might achieve the same result. Without exploring all of those pos- sibilities, suffice it to say that, in our view, a supervisory employee of a local post office is not such an official. In view of the above, the judgment of the dis- trict court is affirmed. AFFIRMED a 26 a --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385002_0825%3A1. Public record. Not legal advice.