Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Cheryl A. Slingland v. Patrick R. Donahoe Postmaster General

September 27, 2012

CHERYL A. SLINGLAND, PLAINTIFF,
v.
PATRICK R. DONAHOE POSTMASTER GENERAL, DEFENDANT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Stengel, J.

MEMORANDUM

Plaintiff, Cheryl A. Slingland, brings this action against her former employer alleging various employment claims arising out of her termination with the United States Postal Service ("USPS"). Defendant filed this Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 11). For the reasons stated below, I will grant the motion to dismiss.

I. Background

A. Factual history

Plaintiff was employed as a postmaster with the United States Postal Service ("USPS") in Hereford, Pennsylvania ("Hereford office"). See Pl.'s Am. Compl. ¶ 3. She began her employment on September 10, 1988. Id. Plaintiff suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder ("PTSD") as a result of her prior military service. Id. ¶ 5. She performed her job satisfactorily until the Hereford office absorbed a larger neighboring post office. Id. ¶ 10, 14. The resulting increase in Plaintiff's workload exacerbated her PTSD, and she so informed USPS. Id. ¶¶ 6, 12. Plaintiff requested additional training to cope with the growing volume of mail, but USPS provided no substantial assistance. Id. ¶¶ 11.

Plaintiff's workload problems were further compounded by USPS's failure to provide additional staff following the merger. Id. Around this time, Plaintiff also claims she was subjected to discrimination based on her age and sex, the latter of which she reported to USPS. Id. ¶¶ 15-17. USPS took no action in response to Plaintiff's complaint. Id.

The Office of Inspector General audited the Hereford office on February 19, 2010, and issued its report on March 16, 2010 ("Report"). See Def.'s Mot. to Dismiss, Ex. D, at 9. The Report alleged that Plaintiff had improperly issued herself money orders from her official stamp accountability. Id. Citing the Report, USPS, through Operations Manager William Wescoe and District Manager Kevin McAdams, placed Plaintiff on emergency off-duty status beginning on March 22, 2010. Id. The following day, USPS issued Plaintiff a Notice of Proposed Adverse Action. Id. A pre-disciplinary meeting was held shortly thereafter. Id. On May 26, 2010, USPS issued Plaintiff a Notice of Proposed Removal. Id. In a letter to Mr. McAdams dated November 30, 2010, Plaintiff denied that she engaged in any improper conduct. Id. at 10. On January 12, 2011, USPS issued a Letter of Decision terminating Plaintiff's employment effective January 14, 2011, citing the findings contained in the Report. Id.

B. Procedural history

Plaintiff filed a formal EEO complaint with USPS on February 1, 2011, alleging discrimination based on age, sex, and disability, as well as retaliation. See Def.'s Mot. to Dismiss, Ex. C. USPS issued a final agency decision on June 16, 2011, with a finding of no discrimination. Id. Ex. D. On June 24, 2011, Plaintiff re-filed an appeal with the Merit Systems Protection Board ("MSPB").*fn1 Id. Ex. H. Plaintiff moved to withdraw her appeal on July 10, 2011, before the MSPB rendered a decision on the merits of her discrimination claims. Id. Ex. F. On July 25, 2011, the MSPB dismissed Plaintiff's appeal as withdrawn. Id. Ex. E.

Plaintiff filed the present action on July 20, 2011. She alleges USPS violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA"), 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq., and the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. by discriminating against her on account of her sex, age, and disability and by retaliating against her for filing an internal charge of discrimination. See Pl.'s Am. Compl. ¶¶ 36-68.

Defendant brings this Motion to Dismiss or in the Alternative for Summary Judgment under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), 12(b)(6), and 56. Defendant principally contends that Plaintiff failed to exhaust her administrative remedies by withdrawing her appeal before the MSPB, thereby precluding review by this court. For the reasons discussed below, I will grant Defendant's motion.

II. Standard of Review

In this Circuit, "failure to exhaust administrative remedies is a defense 'in the nature of statutes of limitation and does not affect the District Court's subject matter jurisdiction.' Nonexhaustion constitutes a possible ground for dismissal for failure to state a claim under [Rule] 12(b)(6)." Phillips v. Sheraton Soc'y Hill, 163 F. App'x 93, 94 (3d Cir. 2005) (quoting Anjelino v. New York Times Company, 200 F.3d 73, 87 (3d Cir. 2000)).

A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) examines the legal sufficiency of the complaint. Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957). The factual allegations must be sufficient to make the claim for relief more than just speculative. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). Pursuant to Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009), my inquiry is two-fold: "First, the factual and legal elements of a claim should be separated. [I] must accept all of the complaint's well-pleaded facts as true, but may disregard any legal conclusions. Second, [I] must then determine whether the facts alleged in the complaint are sufficient ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.