Mark A. Pendergraft v. David P. Steiner, Postmaster General, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma ruled on Defendant David P. Steiner’s motions to dismiss an amended employment-discrimination complaint brought by Mark A. Pendergraft. The court dismissed without prejudice the due process, conspiracy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and hostile work environment claims, while allowing the race, age, and color disparate-treatment claims and the EEO-retaliation claim to proceed. The court also denied as moot related motions concerning the dismissed claims.

Holdings

1. The conspiracy claim was dismissed under Rule 12(b)(1) because the amended complaint failed to state a jurisdictional basis for the claim.
2. The amended complaint plausibly stated disparate-treatment claims based on race, color, and age, so Counts 1-3 survived dismissal.
3. The due-process claim was dismissed because Plaintiff, a probationary employee, did not sufficiently allege a constitutionally protected property or liberty interest in continued employment.
4. The amended complaint plausibly stated an EEO-retaliation claim, so Count 5 survived dismissal.
5. The IIED claim was dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) as preempted by Title VII because it was based on the same operative facts as Plaintiff's federal employment-discrimination claims.
6. The hostile-work-environment claim was dismissed because the alleged confrontation, disparaging comments, and conclusory assertions of stalking, harassment, and threats did not plausibly allege conduct sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of employment.
7. The court denied Plaintiff's informal request for leave to amend because a bare request did not constitute a motion and did not provide adequate notice of the proposed amendment's basis.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the amended complaint stated a jurisdictional basis for the conspiracy claim.
2. Whether the allegations plausibly stated Title VII and ADEA disparate-treatment claims based on race, color, and age.
3. Whether a probationary USPS employee plausibly alleged a protected property or liberty interest supporting a Fifth Amendment due-process claim.
4. Whether the allegations plausibly stated a Title VII EEO-retaliation claim.
5. Whether the intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claim was preempted by Title VII.
6. Whether the allegations stated a hostile-work-environment claim.
7. Whether Plaintiff's informal request for leave to amend required the court to permit another amendment.

Disposition

other