United States District Court, D. Oregon
ETHAN E. PRINTEMPS-HERGET, Plaintiff,
MEGAN J. BRENNAN, Postmaster General of the U.S. Postal Service, Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
MICHAEL W. MOSMAN CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter comes before me on Defendant's Motion for Summary
Judgment . Defendant claims Plaintiff failed to
administratively exhaust all but one of his claims, and that
the remaining claim presents no genuine dispute of material
fact. I agree with Defendant except with respect to the
claims pertaining to the specific incident of Plaintiff s
termination from employment. As to those claims, I find that
Plaintiff did exhaust his administrative remedies. Therefore,
I GRANT in part and DENY in part Defendant's Motion.
August 17, 2013, Defendant United States Postal Service
("USPS") hired Plaintiff Ethan E. Printemps-Herget
to work as a temporary City Carrier Assistant
("CCA"). Schweiner Decl.  ¶ 8. Eventually,
he was converted to a career position, subject to a
ninety-day probationary period. Id.
September 24, 2013, Printemps-Herget filed an Equal
Employment Opportunity ("EEO") complaint against
USPS (the "September Complaint"), alleging
disability and race discrimination. Schweiner Decl.  Ex.
6 at 9. A month later, he withdrew the complaint after
one year later, beginning on August 22, 2014,
Printemps-Herget stopped appearing for work. Schweiner Decl.
 Ex. 2 at 2. According to USPS, he claimed that he was
"unable to work due to stress." Id. On
October 28, 2014, USPS informed him that his continued
absence was without authorization, but, according to USPS,
Printemps-Herget "refused contact from management and
refused to come in for an investigative interview."
Schweiner Decl.  Ex. 1 at 2; Schweiner Decl.  Ex. 2
November 4, 2014, Printemps-Herget filed another EEO
complaint against USPS (the "November Complaint").
Schweiner Decl.  Ex. 6 at 1. He alleged he was being
subjected to "discriminatory harassment" as
retaliation for filing the September Complaint. Id.
In particular, he alleged the following incidents of
1. On unspecified dates, management publicly disclosed that
he was on extended probation because of falsification;
2. On unspecified dates, management disclosed his medical
3. On an unspecified date, management delayed his uniform
4. On an unspecified date, he was transferred to another
5. On August 7, 2014, he was given a discussion in which the
manager was abusive.
December 12, 2014, USPS notified Printemps-Herget that he
would be terminated from employment effective December 13,
2014, for "[f]ailure to maintain your assigned
schedule." Schweiner Decl.  Ex. 3 at 1.
March 12, 2015, Printemps-Herget sent a "PS Form
2564-A" to the USPS EEO Office alleging additional
incidents of adverse treatment (the "March
Complaint"). Schweiner Decl.  Ex. 3. Specifically,
he alleged "disability and possibly retaliation, "
describing the relevant incident as his termination from
employment at USPS. Id. at 1.
March 23, 2015, the USPS EEO Office ruled on the March
Complaint. See Schweiner Decl.  Ex. 5. In their
ruling, the EEO Office first described regulation 29 C.F.R.
§ 1614.106(d) as one that "permits
complainant's [sic] to amend a pending EEO complaint to
add claims that are like or related to those claims raised in
the pending complaint. There is no requirement that the
complainant seek or receive counseling on these new
claims." Id. at 1. The EEO Office then decided
that the March Complaint should be treated as an amendment to
Printemps-Herget's November ...