Kendall v. Postmaster General of the United States, 543 F. App'x 141

Background

Kendall, a part-time Postal Service employee, injured her back shoveling snow on February 14, 2007, and filed a federal workers’ compensation claim two days later.
She filed an EEOC Charge on December 31, 2007 alleging retaliation/harassment for filing the workers’ compensation claim but did not check any discrimination types or allege disability-based discrimination.
The EEOC (mistakenly believing the charge alleged EEO retaliation) sanctioned the Postal Service for discovery violations, entered a default judgment, and Kendall received monetary damages.
Kendall later filed pre-complaint EEO counseling in October 2009 and was terminated December 11, 2009; she filed a second EEO Charge (February 28, 2010) alleging retaliation for her 2007 EEO activity and checked "Retaliation."
Kendall sued under Title VII and the Rehabilitation Act for retaliation; she conceded no Title VII claim but pursued a Rehabilitation Act retaliation claim based on the 2007 charge and 2009 counseling.
The district court granted summary judgment to the Postal Service, holding Kendall’s 2007 charge was facially invalid for Rehabilitation Act purposes because it alleged only retaliation for filing a workers’ compensation claim, not disability discrimination.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Kendall engaged in protected activity under the Rehabilitation Act by filing the 2007 EEOC charge	The 2007 charge and related counseling constitute protected participation under the Rehabilitation Act	The 2007 charge alleged only retaliation for a workers’ compensation claim and did not facially allege disability discrimination, so it is not protected	The 2007 charge was facially invalid for Rehabilitation Act purposes and thus not protected activity
Whether subsequent EEO counseling (2009) or persistence converts an initial facially invalid charge into protected activity	2009 counseling and continued complaints create a protected participation chain stemming from the 2007 activity	Subsequent counseling cannot retrofit protection onto an initial charge that never alleged a disability-based claim	Court rejects argument; later counseling does not cure the facial invalidity of the 2007 charge
Whether the default judgment/damages on the 2007 charge proves the charge was a valid protected activity	The monetary award demonstrates the 2007 charge had legal force and was effectively litigated	The default resulted from Postal Service discovery failures and did not adjudicate the merits or validate the charge’s facial sufficiency	Court holds the default judgment does not change the protected-activity analysis because the claim was not litigated on the merits
Whether factual record gaps or extraneous documents (e.g., McConnell class materials) create triable issues	Additional documents and class membership show disability-based claims and create disputes of fact	Materials not in the district court record cannot be considered on appeal; record shows the 2007 charge lacked disability allegations	Court declines to consider extra-record materials and finds no genuine dispute of material fact; affirms summary judgment

Key Cases Cited

Alcoa, Inc. v. United States, 509 F.3d 173 (3d Cir. 2007) (standard of review for summary judgment)
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (movant's initial burden in summary judgment)
Armbruster v. Unisys Corp., 32 F.3d 768 (3d Cir. 1994) (view facts in light most favorable to nonmovant)
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (1986) (no genuine issue if record cannot lead a rational trier of fact to find for nonmoving party)
Shiring v. Runyon, 90 F.3d 827 (3d Cir. 1996) (Rehabilitation Act incorporates ADA standards)
Fogleman v. Mercy Hospital, Inc., 283 F.3d 561 (3d Cir. 2002) (applying ADA retaliation analysis to Rehabilitation Act claim)
Slagle v. County of Clarion, 435 F.3d 262 (3d Cir. 2006) (filing an EEO charge is not protected activity if the charge does not facially allege a violation of the statute)
Reynolds v. American National Red Cross, 701 F.3d 143 (4th Cir. 2012) (filing a workers’ compensation claim is not activity covered by the ADA)
Leavitt v. SW & B Construction Co., 766 F. Supp.2d 263 (D. Me. 2011) (workers’ compensation claim is not protected under the ADA)