Winns v. DeJoy

Background

Harris L. Winns represented himself. He sued Louis DeJoy, whom the court referred to for simplicity as the U.S. Postal Service (USPS), under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, alleging employment discrimination and retaliation.

Winns had worked for USPS in various non-career positions since 2011. In September 2014, he requested not to work Sundays for religious reasons. USPS said that Sunday package-delivery work required carriers to work Sundays but that it offered to schedule his Sunday hours so he could attend church. After Winns did not report for four Sunday shifts, USPS issued removal notices in October 2014.

In March 2015, USPS rescinded those removal notices, said they would be removed from his personnel file, offered back pay and benefits subject to specified requirements, and instructed him to return to work on March 30, 2015. Winns did not respond or return. After additional notices and a proposed-removal process, USPS terminated him effective July 15, 2015, based on his continued absence without approved leave and his failure to follow instructions.

Administrative proceedings

Winns initially challenged the 2014 events through a mixed-case appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board, alleging race and religious discrimination and retaliation. The appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, and that dismissal was upheld. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission later directed USPS to process the related claims through its equal-employment process.

Winns first contacted an equal-employment counselor about the 2015 termination on April 4, 2016—about nine months after the termination’s effective date. USPS accepted claims concerning the 2014 religious-accommodation request and removal actions but dismissed the claim concerning the 2015 termination as untimely. USPS issued a final agency decision on July 6, 2017. Winns appealed that decision to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, but the court found that he challenged only the 2014 claims and did not challenge the dismissal of the 2015-termination claim.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission later found discrimination and retaliation concerning the 2014 events and ordered remedial measures. It also ordered USPS to pay $30,020 in compensatory damages. USPS stated that it paid that amount in May 2021, and the court found no evidence from Winns disputing that payment. The Commission’s later enforcement decision addressed the calculation of back pay, benefits, and interest and treated the July 15, 2015 termination as still effective.

Lawsuit and summary-judgment motion

Winns filed this action on June 4, 2021. The court construed the remaining claim as a Title VII claim concerning the 2015 termination. USPS moved for summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, arguing that Winns failed to timely contact an equal-employment counselor and failed to file this lawsuit within the applicable deadline. USPS also argued that Winns had not shown enough evidence to establish discrimination or retaliation.

Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine dispute about a fact that could affect the outcome and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law. The court had previously denied USPS’s motion to dismiss the Title VII claim because Winns’s complaint disputed whether he received documents about his reinstatement and termination. At the summary-judgment stage, however, Winns no longer disputed receiving those documents and did not present evidence showing that he contacted an equal-employment counselor within 45 days of the 2015 events.

Administrative exhaustion

The court held that Title VII required Winns to begin contact with an equal-employment counselor within 45 days of the alleged discriminatory personnel action. His earlier administrative proceedings concerned the separate 2014 employment actions and did not suspend the deadline for the distinct July 2015 termination. The court also rejected Winns’s arguments that his self-represented status, his earlier Merit Systems Protection Board appeal, his view that the 2014 removal had not been validly rescinded, or his belief that the 2015 termination was fabricated excused or delayed the 45-day requirement.

The court found no genuine dispute that Winns did not timely exhaust his administrative remedies. It also found no basis for equitable tolling, which can extend a deadline in limited circumstances. The court noted that USPS’s July 9, 2015 decision informed Winns of the 45-day equal-employment-counseling requirement and that the record showed he chose not to respond to USPS’s notices.

Timeliness of the lawsuit

The court separately held that the lawsuit was untimely. USPS’s July 6, 2017 final agency decision incorporated the dismissal of Winns’s 2015-termination claim. Because Winns did not challenge that dismissal in his appeal to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, he had 90 days from receipt of the July 6, 2017 decision to file a lawsuit concerning that claim. He did not file this action until June 4, 2021.

The court found no basis to toll the 90-day filing period. Because Winns failed both to timely exhaust his administrative remedies and to timely file the lawsuit, the court found it unnecessary to decide USPS’s argument that he lacked sufficient evidence to prove discrimination or retaliation.

Disposition

The court granted USPS’s motion for summary judgment. The Clerk of Court was directed to enter judgment and close the file. The court also noted that USPS’s request to continue the final pretrial conference and trial dates was denied as moot.