Harrison v. United States Postal Service
450 F. App'x 38
2d Cir.2011Background
- Harrison, plaintiff, alleged retaliation under Title VII against the United States Postal Service (USPS).
- District court granted summary judgment dismissing his retaliation claims.
- Harrison alleges denials of promotions and other actions occurred after his protected EEO activity.
- Some challenged actions occurred long after the protected activity, with disputed timing.
- One asserted retaliation involved a transfer of a harasser into Harrison’s unit, which Harrison concedes occurred before his own protected activity.
- Another assertion involved a short four-month detail in the Quality Unit, alleged as retaliation but argued to be non‑materially adverse.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Harrison shows a prima facie case of retaliation | Harrison asserts protected activity preceded adverse actions. | USPS contends no causal link shown. | No genuine causal link; no prima facie case. |
| Whether any adverse actions were causally connected to protected activity | Temporal proximity implies causation. | Timing too distant; lacks causality evidence. | Temporal proximity insufficient; causation not shown. |
| Whether the transfer of the harasser constitutes actionable retaliation | Transfer to Harrison’s unit after protected activity shows retaliation. | Harasser transfer occurred before Harrison’s protected activity; not retaliatory. | Not retaliation under Title VII. |
| Whether the short duration of Harrison’s detail was a materially adverse action | Detail was brief and discriminatory. | Detail is discretionary; not materially adverse. | Not a materially adverse action. |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (three-step burden-shifting framework for retaliation claims)
- Gorzynski v. JetBlue Airways Corp., 596 F.3d 93 (2d Cir. 2010) (prima facie retaliation standard in the Second Circuit)
- Burkybile v. Bd. of Educ., 411 F.3d 306 (2d Cir. 2005) (causation timing limits for retaliation claims)
- Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (2006) (materially adverse action depends on circumstances)
- Clark Cnty. Sch. Dist. v. Breeden, 532 U.S. 268 (2001) (very close temporal proximity required for causation)
- Forkkio v. Tanoue, 131 F. Supp. 2d 36 (D.D.C. 2001) (short or discretionary assignments generally not adverse)
- Tex. Dep’t of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248 (1981) (pretext framework for proving ultimate retaliation)
- St. Mary’s Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (1993) (requires plaintiff to prove pretext if defendant offers legitimate reason)
- El Sayed v. Hilton Hotels Corp., 627 F.3d 931 (2d Cir. 2010) (contextual guidance on summary judgment in retaliation cases)
- Wright v. Goord, 554 F.3d 255 (2d Cir. 2009) (evidence standard for retaliation inferences)