Milford S. Jones v. John E. Potter, Post Master General, United States Postal Service, No. 01- 1905 (D.D.C. Jan. 2004), Walton, J.
Summary judgment was warranted in this case because the single incident of harassment was of short duration and not sufficiently severe. The retaliation claim also failed because the temporary reassignment of the plaintiff and the denial of opportunities to work overtime were not adverse employment actions (the latter justifiable because the USPS was under a cost-cutting mandate). This decision discusses some of the case law governing same-sex harassment and single incident harassment. To read the decision, go to:http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/01-1905.pdf.
Judge Walton concluded that “[w]hile Mr. Wallace's actions were not in accordance with proper workplace etiquette, ‘a supervisor's unprofessional managerial approach and accompanying efforts to assert his authority are not the focus of the discrimination laws.’ Lee Crespo, 2003 WL 23095261, at * 10. Nor are any of the claims of retaliation actionable as they were not adverse employment actions and the defendant has asserted legitimate reasons for its actions. Accordingly, summary judgment is entered in favor of the defendant and plaintiff's complaint is dismissed with prejudice.”7 MWELA MONTHLY January 2004