Where there were disputed issues of material fact over whether a postal service employee intended to initiate the EEO process when she reported her supervisor’s sexual harassment, the postal service’s motion for summary judgment was denied.
Background
In June 2025, plaintiff Stephanie Austin brought suit for sexual harassment in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 against defendant David Steiner, the Postmaster General of the United States Postal Service and the United States Postal Service, or USSPS. Steiner moved to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint, arguing that she failed to exhaust her administrative remedies.
The court converted Steiner’s motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment and ordered limited discovery on the exhaustion issue. Following the close of discovery in August 2026, Steiner moved for summary judgment on the same basis: plaintiff’s failure to seek EEO counseling within the requisite 45-day period.
Analysis
Plaintiff avers that the last alleged act of harassment occurred on March 30, 2024. Therefore, she had until May 14, 2024, to seek EEO counseling. Because plaintiff did not contact an EEO counselor until Nov 1, 2024, the operative question is whether plaintiff contacted an agency official logically connected to the EEO process with the intent to commence the EEO process. After a thorough review of the record, the court finds that there is a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether plaintiff initiated contact with an...
Every couple of years, the same false stories come back. A claim that an election was rigged before a single vote was cast. An old video of violence, stripped of its date and place, presented as b...