United States District Court, D. Massachusetts
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
NATHANIEL M. GORTON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
case involves allegations of employment discrimination and
failure to ameliorate a hostile work environment. Plaintiff
Ulas Avci (“Avci” or “plaintiff”),
proceeding pro se, claims that Megan L. Brennan, Postmaster
General, United States Postal Service (“Postal
Service” or “defendant”) unlawfully
discriminated against him on the basis of race and national
origin when Avci was not hired as a Postal Support Employee
Custodian. In addition, Avci alleges that, during the time he
was employed by the Postal Service, he was subjected to a
hostile work environment in violation of Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964. Defendant's motion for summary
judgment is currently pending before the Court.
a naturalized United States citizen who describes himself as
“a Kurdish American from Turkey”. From sometime
in 2010 until August, 2011, he was employed by the Postal
Service as a “Casual - Maintenance Building Services
Custodian” at the Brockton Processing and Distribution
Center in Brockton, Massachusetts (“the Brockton
facility”). Avci resided in Brockton at that time.
July, 2011, plaintiff applied for the position of Postal
Support Employee (“PSE”) Custodian in Brockton.
He took the applicable assessment examination and obtained a
score of 88/100, which placed him seventh out of seven
applicants on defendant's hiring list.
August, 2011, the Postal Service terminated the employment of
all Casual - Maintenance Building Services Custodians
nationwide, including Mr. Avci. In September, 2011, plaintiff
moved to Germany and ultimately returned to Turkey.
dispute in this case focuses on defendant's purported
attempt to rehire plaintiff for the position of PSE Custodian
in Brockton after the nationwide Casual Custodian lay-off.
provided his cell phone number on his employment application.
Joseph A. Campbell, the Supervisor of Maintenance Operations
at the Brockton facility, who was plaintiff's immediate
supervisor while he was a Casual Custodian at that facility,
attempted to reach plaintiff by telephone. Avci and the
Postal Service disagree about what happened next. Defendant
submits that Campbell attempted to contact plaintiff by
calling him on his cell phone. Avci notes that Campbell did
not call the number he listed on his application.
Defendant's extension detail report confirms that
Campbell did not dial plaintiff's number. As stated in
defendant's memorandum in support of its motion for
summary judgment, Campbell attempted to contact all of the
applicants on the Hiring List by telephone and/or email.
not quite Campbell's recollection. In the EEO
Investigative Affidavit, Campbell stated that “all PSE
candidate were contacted via phone/email.”
also maintains that one of Avci's co-workers, Alan Voll,
unsuccessfully attempted to contact him. Plaintiff insists
that he did not receive a call and correctly notes that
“there is no record of [the call] and the co-worker is
not an official.”
March, 2012, Tony McGuire, defendant's Manager of
Maintenance Operations for the Boston Processing and
Distribution Center emailed plaintiff to schedule an
interview for the PSE Custodian job. McGuire contends that
Avci would have been hired as a PSE Custodian at the Brockton
facility if Avci had completed the interview process.
Defendant avers that Avci declined the interview although it
provides no record of that communication. Plaintiff disputes
claims he was discriminated against when the Postal Service
intentionally avoided contacting him about the PSE Custodian
interview because of his Turkish national origin. As
plaintiff tells it, 1) he provided his phone number on the
job application, 2) Campbell intentionally dialed the wrong
phone number because of his bias against the plaintiff and 3)
plaintiff's co-worker also failed to contact him about
the interview for the same reason. Finally, Avci maintains
that the interview email he received was a “deliberate
effort by defendant to mislead the EEO investigation.”
Avci was eligible for employment at the Brockton facility,
not the Boston facility, he explains, so that email was
merely a ruse.
second amended complaint contains a plethora of counts. They
include: 1) civil rights violations under Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq; 2)
violations of EEOC guidelines; 3) civil rights violations
under M.G.L. c. 151B; 4) criminal forgery under M.G.L. c. 267
§ 1-5; 5) forgery under the Immigration and Nationality
Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1324(c); 6) civil rights violations
under the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981; 7)
violations of USPS policy; 8) perjury under 18 U.S.C. §
1621; 9) an equal protection violation under the Fourteenth
Amendment; 10) intentional infliction of emotional distress;
11) interference with employment and 12) equal rights
violations under M.G.L. c. 93, § 102(a).
“document filed pro se is to be liberally
construed.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89,
94 (2007) (citation omitted). Accordingly, reading the second
amended complaint in the light most favorable to the
plaintiff, the Court understands count I to constitute two
claims: a claim for discrimination in hiring and a claim for
hostile work environment.
before the Court is the Postal Service's motion for
Motion for Summary Judgment
role of summary judgment is “to pierce the pleadings
and to assess the proof in order to see whether there is a
genuine need for trial.” Mesnick v. Gen. Elec.
Co.,950 F.2d 816, 822 (1st Cir. 1991). The burden is on
the moving party to show, through the pleadings, discovery
and affidavits, “that there is no genuine dispute as to
any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment
as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). A fact is
material if it “might affect the outcome of the suit
under the governing law.” Anderson v. Liberty
Lobby, Inc.,477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A genuine issue
of material ...