Lanza v. Postmaster General of the United States, 570 F. App'x 236

Background

Lanza, a USPS supervisor in Red Bank, NJ, sued USPS, the Postmaster General, and others alleging sex and disability discrimination under Title VII and the Rehabilitation Act and retaliation for workers’ compensation filing.
She injured her knee in 2006, underwent surgery in 2007, and was placed on limited duty; she received a workers’ compensation award in December 2008.
On December 9, 2008, a power outage prevented timely mail transfer to the processing facility; Lagana (postmaster) and Carter were involved in the incident.
Lanza received a notice of proposed removal (NPR) on December 30, 2008, but was told it did not suspend or demote her and she could appeal; she left work after learning of the NPR and did not return.
Mediation reduced the NPR to a letter of warning in lieu of a 7-day suspension in April 2009; in June 2009, USPS rescinded all discipline and absolved her of wrongdoing.
The district court granted summary judgment for the USPS on all claims; the Third Circuit reviews de novo.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether NPR was an adverse employment action under Title VII.	Lanza argues NPR adversely affected terms/conditions of employment.	NPR was a preliminary warning, not an actual adverse action.	NPR not an adverse action.
Whether NPR constitutes adverse action under the Rehabilitation Act.	Discrimination under the Rehabilitation Act occurred via NPR.	NPR was not a termination or significant restriction.	NPR not an adverse action under the Rehabilitation Act.
Whether Lanza was constructively discharged.	Mental and physical stress from NPR effectively forced resignation.	NPR did not alter day-to-day duties and offered avenues of appeal.	No constructive discharge.
Whether Lanza adequately stated a retaliation claim.	NPR was retaliation for workers’ compensation filing and limited duty status.	Workers’ compensation filing is not protected activity; no causal link shown.	No prima facie retaliation.

Key Cases Cited

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. Supreme Court (1973)) (establishes burden-shifting framework)
Storey v. Burns Int'l Sec. Servs., 390 F.3d 760 (3d Cir. 2004) (defines adverse employment action scope)
Cardenas v. Massey, 269 F.3d 251 (3d Cir. 2001) (objective standard for constructive discharge)
Aman v. Cort Furniture Rental Corp., 85 F.3d 1074 (3d Cir. 1996) (conduct must be intolerable to amount to constructive discharge)
Mandel v. M & Q Packaging Corp., 706 F.3d 157 (3d Cir. 2013) (servere and pervasive harassment standard for constructive discharge)
Spencer v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 469 F.3d 311 (3d Cir. 2006) (foundation for hostile environment-like reasoning in adverse action)
Wishkin v. Potter, 476 F.3d 180 (3d Cir. 2007) (retaliation framework in Third Circuit)
Reynolds v. Am. Nat’l Red Cross, 701 F.3d 143 (4th Cir. 2012) (retaliation for workers’ compensation claim not protected activity)
Davis v. Team Elec. Co., 520 F.3d 1080 (9th Cir. 2008) (retaliation for workers’ compensation claim not actionable under ADA/Title VII)
LeBoon v. Lancaster Jewish Cmty. Ctr. Ass’n, 503 F.3d 217 (3d Cir. 2007) (causal nexus requires more than a long gap between protected activity and adverse action)
Krouse v. Am. Sterilizer Co., 126 F.3d 494 (3d Cir. 1997) (causal proof standards for retaliation)
Kachmar v. SunGard Data Sys., Inc., 109 F.3d 173 (3d Cir. 1997) (temporal proximity and pattern considerations in retaliation claims)
Lombardi, Inc. v. Smithfield, 11 A.3d 1180 (Del. 1989) (irreparable harm is the most important factor for a preliminary injunction)
Hearth Admins., Corp v. City of New York, 394 F.3d 382 (2d Cir. 2012) (public policy arguments rarely factor heavily into preliminary injunctions)
Barzingus v. Wilheim, 306 F.3d 17 (10th Cir. 2010) (motion to compel arbitration standard similar to summary judgment standard)