Jones v. DeJoy

Background

Kyung Sook Jones had worked as a United States Postal Service letter carrier since December 1986. She had been on a limited-duty assignment since at least 2008 because of a workplace injury. In August 2019, management offered her a modified assignment that required mail delivery, unlike her prior assignment. Jones signed the assignment under protest.

Jones filed several grievances through her union, alleging that the Postal Service assigned duties inconsistent with her medical restrictions and later failed to follow part of a grievance resolution concerning her work hours and duties. The grievance process ended in impasses as to some matters, and not all of those matters proceeded to arbitration.

In March 2020, Jones contacted an Equal Employment Opportunity counselor. She later filed a formal complaint alleging race discrimination, disability discrimination, and retaliation for filing an Equal Employment Opportunity complaint in 2016. The Equal Employment Opportunity office dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim, reasoning that her disagreement with the grievance decision belonged in the grievance process. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission affirmed and issued a notice allowing her to sue.

Jones then filed this case representing herself. She alleged that the Postal Service required her to perform duties beyond her physical restrictions, failed to provide a safe modified-duty assignment, and threatened to terminate her if she did not deliver a parcel.

Summary-judgment standard

The court explained that summary judgment is appropriate when the record shows no genuine dispute about a fact that could affect the result and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law. Once the moving party meets its initial burden, the opposing party must identify evidence supporting its claims.

Court’s analysis

DeJoy argued that Jones had not timely completed the required administrative process. For a federal employee to bring a Title VII claim in federal court, the employee must contact an Equal Employment Opportunity counselor within 45 days of the alleged discriminatory conduct. The court treated this deadline as a limitations period that may sometimes be waived, extended because of misleading conduct, or paused for equitable reasons.

The court concluded that Jones’s claims accrued no later than August 2019, when she signed the modified assignment under protest and knew that it required the duties she challenged. Alternatively, the court found that the latest possible accrual date was January 8, 2020, when Jones initiated a grievance concerning the Postal Service’s alleged failure to follow the grievance resolution. Either date was more than 45 days before Jones contacted an Equal Employment Opportunity counselor on March 20, 2020.

The court rejected Jones’s argument that the February 2020 request that she continue delivering mail was a new discriminatory act. It characterized that incident as continued enforcement of the earlier modified assignment, not a new act that restarted the 45-day period. The court also held that the March 2020 threat of termination was not actionable under Title VII because Jones provided no evidence that she was actually terminated and the threat did not materially change her compensation, employment terms, conditions, or privileges.

The court further found that pausing or extending the deadline was not justified. It noted that Jones had previously filed Equal Employment Opportunity complaints and a prior related proceeding in the same court, and that she did not allege that a Postal Service official affirmatively misled her. The court also held that using the union grievance process or communicating with the Department of Labor did not pause the Equal Employment Opportunity deadline.

Disposition

Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. granted DeJoy’s motion for summary judgment. The court directed the Clerk to enter judgment in favor of DeJoy and close the case.