Where an employee of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, or USPTO, failed to show she suffered an adverse employment action, that the decision to temporarily reassign her job duties was for an unlawful reason or that the USPTO’s reason for the reassignment was pretextual, the USPTO prevailed on the discrimination claim.
Background
Carl Tankesley, as personal representative of Anna Tankesley, has sued Tankesley’s former employer: the USPTO Director. There are three claims remaining in this case: (1) disability discrimination; (2) retaliation and (3) disability-based and retaliatory hostile work environment. Defendant has filed a motion for summary judgment on all three claims.
Hearsay
As a preliminary matter, defendant contends that a Tankesley affidavit, declaration and emails previously submitted as part of the EEOC proceeding are inadmissible hearsay. In opposition, plaintiff argues: (i) that the contested documents are not inadmissible hearsay and (ii) that, in any event, they are admissible under the residual exception in Fed. R. Evid 807. The plaintiff is incorrect, and the affidavits, declaration and emails must be excluded as inadmissible hearsay.
Defendant also argues that the declaration of Sabrina Lewis is a sham affidavit and thus cannot be relied upon at summary judgment. The court agrees that there is a clear contradiction between Lewis’ deposition testimony and Lewis’ declaration. Accordingly, paragraph 15 of the Lewis declaration cannot be...
"The election poster for a Reform Party candidate running for Seoul's Gwangjin District Council is written entirely in Chinese. Is this China?" says part of a Korean-language Facebook post shared ...