Preview:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

ROBERT N. LaPORTE Plaintiff v. WILLIAM J. HENDERSON, Postmaster General of the United States Defendant

* * * * * * * * * * *

Civil No. PJM 00-3341

OPINION

I. Plaintiff Robert N. LaPorte sues Defendant William J. Henderson, Postmaster General of the United States. 1 Based on a complaint filed in January of 1993, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) found that LaPorte, an employee of the USPS, had been discriminated against in his employment based on his race, color and age.

1

Henderson is no longer Postmaster General, having been succeeded by John E. Potter. Defense counsel has not moved to Substitute Potter as Defendant in these proceedings, but the Court deems that to be unnecessary. In place of the Postmaster General, the Court will refer to the United States Postal Service (the USPS). 1

Although the EEOC rejected LaPorte's claims that he was denied promotions on these grounds, it held that, for discriminatory reasons, the agency consistently denied him an opportunity to serve as an Acting Supervisor in various post offices. Commission granted LaPorte certain relief, including back pay. The EEOC also entered the following directive: The [USPS] shall consider [LaPorte's] claim for compensatory damages incurred as a result of the agency's discriminatory failure to utilize him as an acting supervisor. Within 15 days of the date that it receives this decision, the agency shall notify appellant of his right to present evidence to the agency regarding his claim for compensatory damages. Appellant shall provide objective evidence that the damages in question were a result of the agency's discrimination and of the amount of the claimed damages. Within 30 days of the submission of such evidence, the agency shall issue a final agency decision on this issue, with appropriate appeal rights to the Commission. LaPorte's attorney responded by submitting a letter stating that the Accordingly, the

"discrimination caused Mr. LaPorte to suffer both financial and mental harm" and asked for $300,000 in damages. He subsequently submitted a recalculation of damages seeking an

aggregate of $614,080 in damages, of which $300,000 was designated for "Pain and Suffering/Emotional Distress." No evidence of LaPorte's emotional distress, objective or

otherwise, accompanied these papers, i.e., there were no statements from Laporte or anyone else and no medical or psychological reports. Both the USPS and the EEOC eventually denied LaPorte's claim for compensatory damages in its entirety. The EEOC held: [W]e agree with the agency's finding that compensatory damages are not supported by the record. Complainant fails to present a 2

scintilla of evidence describing his claim for "pain and suffering/emotional distress" relating to the finding of discrimination. 2/ On appeal, complainant concedes that he did not seek medical or psychiatric treatment. However, complainant argues that "one does not have to have a grasp for the obvious to reach the conclusion that pain and suffering prevailed after a seven-year period of waiting for a decision." With respect to this argument we note that complainant is not entitled to any damages caused as a result of a lengthy complaint/adjudication process, nor is he entitled to damages related to the non-promotion issues that the Commission previously found to be properly dismissed as untimely. Complainant is solely entitled to damages that were directly caused by the discriminatory conduct. Lastly, complainant provided, for the first time on appeal, a statement from his daughter. 3/ Assuming such evidence was presented before the agency in a timely manner, 4/ we find that such evidence is, nevertheless, insufficient to prove that compensatory damages were suffered by complainant as a direct result of the discriminatory conduct. Complainant's daughter stated that complainant "changed a lot since this whole thing happened; he now hates going to work." However, complainant's daughter described complainant's frustrations as being related to the agency's failure to promote complainant to higher levels over the years, rather than the discriminatory act (i.e., failure of complainant to be assigned acting supervisor duties on several occasions). Accordingly, the statement by complainant's daughter fails to show emotional distress caused by the discrimination at issue herein.
2/ Complainant also argues on appeal that he is entitled to an award of back pay related to the alleged discriminatory non-promotions. However, since the Commission has previously found this allegation untimely raised before an EEO counselor, we find no merit to complainant's claim We note that this is the only witness statement/documentary evidence in the record related to compensatory damages. We do not address the merits of considering such new evidence on appeal.

3/ 4/

Disagreeing with the EEOC's conclusion, La Porte has brought the present suit. In it, he seeks inter alia: 3

1)

Judgment ordering that the USPS promote him to a supervisory position; and

2)

Judgment for emotional distress. 2

The USPS asks the Court to dismiss the case or alternatively to grant it summary judgment on the grounds that: 1) 2) 3) LaPorte has failed to state a claim; No genuine issue of material fact exists; LaPorte has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. 3 II. A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim tests the legal sufficiency of the complaint. See, e.g., District 28, United Mine Workers of America, Inc. v. Wellmore Coal Corp., 609 F.2d 1083, 1085-86 (4th Cir. 1979). For purposes of the motion, the court takes Byrd v. Gate Petroleum Co., 845 F.2d

the well-pleaded allegations of the complaint as true. 86, 87 (4th Cir. 1988).

The court, however, need not accept the truth of inferences or United States ex rel. Chunie v.

conclusions unsupported by allegations of specific facts.

2

Further facts will be set forth in the course of this Opinion.
3

Although the USPS asserts three grounds, it actually argues no more than one, viz., failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Presumably the USPS means to suggest that LaPorte's failure to exhaust his administrative remedies signifies either that he has no claim to state or that The USPS is entitled to summary judgment. 4

Ringrose, 788 F.2d 638, 643 n.2 (9th Cir. 1986). Nor need the court accept the truth of legal conclusions. Wellmore Coal Corp., 609 F.2d at 1085-86. A complaint will be dismissed if it appears beyond doubt that, in support of his claims, plaintiff can prove no set of facts that would entitle him to relief. Boyce v. Alizaduh, 595 F.2d 948, 951 (4th Cir. 1979). Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c), summary judgment is appropriate if "there is no genuine issue as to any material fact" and the "moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Specific material evidentiary facts must be shown to overcome summary judgment.

Ash v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 800 F.2d 409, 411-12 (4th Cir. 1986). III. It is well established that prior to filing a suit under Title VII, a claimant is required to pursue and exhaust administrative remedies. See 42 U.S.C.

Download Robert N. Laporte v. William J. Henderson.pdf

Maryland Law