Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.

Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw

Date: 09-09-2022

Case Style:

Gloria Brooks v. Louis Dejoy

Case Number: 21-cv-0024

Judge: Claire V. Egan

Court: United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma (Tulsa County)

Plaintiff's Attorney: United States Attorney’s Office

Defendant's Attorney:

Click Here to Watch How To Find A Lawyer by Kent Morlan

Click Here For The Best Tulsa Criminal Defense Lawyer Directory

If no lawyer is listed, call 918-582-6422 and MoreLaw will help you find a lawyer for free.

Description: Tulsa, Oklahoma employment law lawyer represented Plaintiff, who sued Defendant for retaliation against her for participating in an investigation of her supervisor Steven Wendell Johnson.

Plaintiff was interviewed for the USPS investigation of her coworker's allegations concerning Steven Wendell Johnson on or about February 27, 2020. Dkt. #34, at 1; Dkt. # 48, at 2. Plaintiff alleges that following her participation in the USPS investigation, her “supervisors stopped talking to [her], and then within a couple of weeks, they stopped assigning overtime work to [her], despite the fact that [she] was on the overtime desired list.” Dkt. # 34, at 2; Dkt. # 48, at 2. Plaintiff further alleges she filed a grievance with the American Postal Workers Union on March 29, 2020, “based on the denial of [her] overtime from March 11, 2020 until March 25, 2020" which was denied. Dkt. # 34, at 2; Dkt. # 48, at 2.

Plaintiff produced pay stubs for pay period 6 through pay period 10 as evidence supporting the retaliation claim. Dkt. # 34, at 2; Dkt. # 48, at 2. These pay stubs cover the dates of February 29, 2020, through May 8, 2020. Dkt. # 34, at 2; Dkt. # 48, at 2. Only pay periods 7 and 8, covering the dates of March 14, 2020, through April 10, 2020, do not include overtime hours. Dkt. #34, at 3; Dkt. # 48, at 3. Plaintiff's response does not include facts or evidence of any retaliation outside of the time period covered by the pay stubs.

Plaintiff filed an initial EEO complaint alleging sex discrimination on June 24, 2020, which USPS received on June 29, 2020. Dkt. # 34, at 3; Dkt. # 48, at 3. Plaintiff did not include any allegations of retaliation in the initial EEO complaint. Dkt. # 34, at 3; Dkt. # 48, at 3. An interview regarding plaintiff's initial EEO complaint was held on June 30, 2020. Dkt. # 34, at 3; Dkt. # 48, at 3. Plaintiff participated in mediation as to her EEO complaint on August 13, 2020, but plaintiff and USPS did not reach a resolution. Dkt. # 34, at 3; Dkt. # 48, at 3. On September 21, 2020, plaintiff received a letter notifying her that there was no resolution to her counseling request, and she had the right to file a formal complaint within 15 days from date of receipt of the letter. Dkt. # 34, at 4; Dkt. # 48, at 3.

On October 2, 2020, plaintiff filed a formal EEO complaint with USPS alleging sex-based discrimination and retaliation. Dkt. # 34, at 4; Dkt. # 48, at 3-4. Plaintiff's allegations of retaliation in her formal EEO complaint were not included in her initial EEO complaint. Dkt. # 34, at 4; Dkt. # 48, at 4. On October 22, 2020, USPS dismissed plaintiff's formal EEO complaint pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.107(a)(2). Dkt. # 34-11, at 4; Dkt. # 48, at 4. As to the retaliation claim, USPS found that plaintiff did not bring the claim to the attention of the EEO counselor, nor does the claim “add to or clarify the original complaint.” Dkt. # 34-11, at 4; Dkt. # 48, at 4. Plaintiff was notified of her right to appeal or file a civil action, and she filed the complaint in the instant case on January 20, 2021. Dkt. # 34-11, at 4-5; Dkt. # 34, at 5; Dkt. # 48, at 4.

Outcome: Motion for summary judgment granted.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:


Find a Lawyer


Find a Case