United States District Court, S.D. New York
YaVettee Lynch Plaintiff Pro Se.
Anthony J. Sun Assistant United States Attorney New York, New
York Counsel for Defendant.
OPINION & ORDER
YaVettee Lynch asserts claims for retaliation at her
workplace. Before the Court is the Motion for Summary
Judgment of Defendant Megan J. Brennan. (Doc. 54.) For
the reasons stated below, Defendant's motion is GRANTED.
is a tools and parts clerk for the United States Postal
Service (“USPS”) at a vehicle maintenance
facility in White Plains, New York. (56.1 Stmt. ¶ 26;
Doc. 7 (“Answer”) ¶ 18.) Plaintiff was the
only female who worked her shift, which was called
“Tour Three” and lasted from 2:00 pm to 10:30 pm.
(Doc. 67 Ex. 6 (“P's Dep.”) at 38, 40.) At
all relevant times Plaintiff's supervisor was David Cox
and her manager was Ismael Velez. (Compl. ¶ 5; P's
Dep. at 42.)
tools and parts clerk, Plaintiff's job responsibilities
included procuring parts requested by mechanics, supervisors,
and other post office employees. (P's Dep. at 103-04.)
She ordered the parts using two different USPS credit cards.
(Id. at 104.) As part of using USPS credit cards,
she was required to reconcile her bank statements by a
certain deadline each month, (see Id. at 107-08),
and her purchases were subject to various supervisors'
approval, (see Id. at 111).
Plaintiff's Initial EEO Activity
March 21, 2014, Plaintiff made a request for pre-complaint
counseling with USPS's Equal Employment Opportunity
(“EEO”) office, which case was designated
4B-105-0011-14 (“Case 11”). (Sun Decl. Ex. B.) In
Case 11, Plaintiff alleged that: (1) Cox told her he
“was sending another employee to sign off on [her]
credit card” usage; (2) he did not pay Plaintiff
correctly off and on for over six months; (3) on March 12,
2014, he threatened to stop Plaintiff from achieving a
“higher level;” and (4) Cox failed to teach
Plaintiff how to use the “system.” (Id.
Ex. B at 1-2.) Following mediation, Plaintiff, Cox, and
Velez entered into an agreement on June 11, 2014 settling
“all issues arising out of the subject matter” of
Case 11. (Id. Ex. C at 1.)
Alleged Retaliation & Subsequent EEO Activity
testified that in May 2014, Arlene McDuffie, the shop steward
at the vehicle maintenance facility where Plaintiff worked,
(see P's Dep. at 45; Compl. ¶¶ 14,
17), filed a report that Plaintiff had tried to run McDuffie
over with a car, (P's Dep. at 64; Compl. ¶ 18).
McDuffie's claim was investigated, and Plaintiff was
interviewed by inspectors for “a few minutes or half an
hour, ” (P's Dep. at 66), after which the
inspectors concluded that Plaintiff had been driving
“the correct way, ” (id. at 65), and
Velez told the inspectors that Plaintiff was “all
right, ” (id. at 66). Plaintiff was not
disciplined, terminated, or arrested as a result of this
incident. (See Id. at 138, 144-45.)
claims that in July 2014, Cox interfered with her work by
refusing to preapprove certain of her credit card purchases,
(see Compl. ¶ 10; P's Dep. at 119-21), and
assigning Plaintiff certain tasks, then assigning them to a
coworker of Plaintiff's, and complaining to Velez that
Plaintiff was derelict in her duties, (see Compl.
¶ 10; P's Dep. at 121-23).
to Plaintiff, on August 19, 2014, Cox cornered Plaintiff and
complained about her failure to properly reconcile her USPS
credit card statements. (See Compl. ¶ 11; Sun
Decl. Ex. F at 1-2.) At some point during this encounter, Cox
shook his finger in Plaintiff's face, (Compl. ¶ 11),
which Plaintiff contends was somehow connected to Cox's
direction that she not participate in unspecified activities
because Plaintiff was being investigated for McDuffie's
May 2014 complaint, (P's Dep. at 129).
August 20, 2014, Plaintiff made another request for
pre-complaint counseling with the EEO office, which case was
designated 4B-105-0023-14 (“Case 23”). (Sun Decl.
Ex. F.) In Case 23, Plaintiff alleged harassment and
retaliation for her previous EEO complaint, including: (1)
Cox waited until Plaintiff was alone in the stockroom to
discuss her invoices and credit card statements; (2) Cox
asked her why she thought she could “make up [her] own
hours to work;” (3) Plaintiff worked fifty minutes past
the end of her shift but received “no overtime;”
(4) Cox shook his finger in Plaintiff's face; (5) Cox was
working with McDuffie “again;” (6) Cox kept
copies of invoices Plaintiff signed when parts came in; (7) a
male coworker was leaving the facility in his personal car
while on the clock, which is prohibited; and (8) McDuffie
copies Plaintiff's work and gives it to Plaintiff's
supervisor. (Id. Ex. F at 1-2, 4.)
October 3, 2014, Cox called Plaintiff into his office in an
attempt to administer a pre-disciplinary interview
(“PDI”). (Compl. ¶ 14.) Cox directed that
McDuffie, in her capacity as shop steward, (see
P's Dep. at 136-37), represent Plaintiff during the PDI,
(Compl. ¶ 14). Plaintiff refused to be represented by
McDuffie given their past interactions, of which Plaintiff
contends Cox was aware. (See Id. ¶¶ 14,
19.) Plaintiff ...