Kendall v. Donahoe
2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 180849
W.D. Pa.2012Background
- Kendall, a USPS employee since 2003, claimed a February 14, 2007 back injury from shoveling snow at the Pulaski, PA post office and filed a federal workers’ compensation claim on February 16, 2007.
- On December 31, 2007, Kendall filed an EEOC Charge alleging retaliation/discrimination for the workers’ comp claim, but she did not indicate a disability basis in the charge.
- The USPS allegedly retaliated by actions including discipline and ultimately Kendall’s December 11, 2009 termination after an alleged mail-opening incident.
- Kendall initiated a second EEOC process in October 2009 and filed another EEOC Charge in February 2010 alleging harassment and retaliation for prior EEO activity.
- Kendall sued on September 14, 2010 claiming retaliation under Title VII and the Rehabilitation Act; the court granted summary judgment for USPS on the Rehabilitation Act retaliation claim by holding Kendall did not engage in protected activity.
- The central legal issue is whether Kendall’s 2007 EEOC Charge constitutes protected activity under the Rehabilitation Act/ADA, such that retaliation could be proven.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Kendall engaged in protected activity under the Rehabilitation Act/ADA | Kendall asserts retaliation for protected activity tied to her 2007/2009 EEOC activity | Kendall's 2007 charge was not a facially valid ADA/RA complaint and thus not protected activity | No; Kendall’s 2007 charge was facially invalid and not protected activity |
Key Cases Cited
- Slagle v. County of Clarion, 435 F.3d 262 (3d Cir.2006) (filing an EEOC charge not protected unless facially valid)
- Shellenberger v. Summit Bancorp, Inc., 318 F.3d 183 (3d Cir.2003) (retaliation for a good-faith accommodation request is unlawful)
- Fogleman v. Mercy Hosp., Inc., 283 F.3d 561 (3d Cir.2002) (ADA retaliation provisions interpreted broadly as in Title VII)
- Barber v. CSX Distrib. Servs., 68 F.3d 694 (3d Cir.1995) (protected conduct requires specific complaint of prohibited discrimination)
- Soileau v. Guilford of Maine, Inc., 105 F.3d 12 (1st Cir.1997) (non-disabled accommodation requests can be protected activity)