United States Postal Service Board of Governors v. Aikens Joint Appendix

    ilu tljp Oluurt uf Inttflt t̂atrs
October T erm , 1981

No. 81-1044

U nited States Postal Service Board op Governors,
Petitioner

Louis H. A ik ens

ON writ of certiorari to the united  states court 
OF APPEALS for THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

JOINT APPENDIX

TABLE OF CONTENTS OF APPENDIX
Page

Relevant Docket Entries ................................................... 1

Stipulation Of Facts, filed January 5, 1979 .................... 6

Order allowing certiorari ..................................................  12



RELEVANT DOCKET ENTRIES

DATE 

1977 

Feb 18 

Feb 18

Apr 26 

Apr 26

May 6

May 9 

May 20

May 23

PROCEEDINGS

Jun 20 

Jul 27

Sept 13

COMPLAINT.
SUMMONS (13) and copies (13) of complaint 

issued. ALL defts ser 2-24-77. U.S. Atty ser 
2-25-77.

ANSWER by defts. to complaint; c/m 4-26-77. Ap­
pearance of Michael J. Ryan.

CALENDARED. CAL/N.
MOTION by defts. to dismiss the complaint vs. 

defts. # 3  thru 11; memorandum; c/m  4-26-77.
STATEMENT of points and authorities by pltff. in 

opposition to defts’ motion to dismiss the com­
plaint vs. defts. # 3 , 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11; 
c/s 5-6-77.

CHANGE of address of L. Harold Aikens, Jr. 
attorney for pltf.; c/m 5-9-77. CD/N

MOTION of defts. # 3  thru #11 to dismiss com­
plaint heard and granted. Discovery close July 
20, 1977. (Rep. E. A. Kaufman) Hart, J.

ORDER filed May 20, 1977 granting defts’ motion 
to dismiss and deft., Bolger, Ching, Codding, 
Hardesty, Holding, Irvine, Nevin, Robertson and 
Wright are dismissed from this action. (N) 
Hart, J.

INTERROGATORIES by pltff. to deft.; c /s  6-20-77.

STIPULATION extending deft’s time to and in­
cluding 8-16-77 to answer pltff’s interrogatories. 
(FIAT) (N) Hart, J.

OBJECTIONS by deft, to first interrogatories of 
pltf.; c /s  9-13-77.

( 1)



DATE PROCEEDINGS

1977
Sept 13 ANSWERS by deft, to first interrogatories of pltf.; 

appendices A thru D ; c /s  9-13-77.

1978
June 14 STATUS Hearing. Court will mail a pre-trial order.

Trial to be set later. (Rep: E. Sanche) Hart, J.

June 19 PRETRIAL Order filed 6-15-78. (N) Hart, J.
Jul 24 SUPPLEMENTAL answer by defts. to pltff’s first 

interrogatories; attachments (3).
Aug 1 MOTION by deft, for enlargement of time to & in­

cluding 8/16/78 within which the defts. may file 
a list of witnesses and exhibits.

Aug 1 PRETRIAL statement of pltff.; appendix; Exhibits 
1 thru 24.

Aug 9 ORDER FILED Aug. 8, 1978 enlarging deft’s time 
to file list of witnesses and exhibits to and includ­
ing 8-16-78. (N) Hart, J.

Aug 16 LIST by defts. of witnesses and exhibits; Exhibit 
1 (3 vols.), exhibit 2 & 3.

Aug 31 MOTION by defts. # 1  & 2 for extension of time to 
submit responsive pre-trial brief.

Sept 05 ORDER filed 9/1/78 granting an extension of time 
to and including 9/11/78 for deft, to file a re­
sponsive pre-trial brief (N) Hart, J.

Sept 11 PRE-TRIAL STATEMENT by D eft.; Attachments
(2 )

Oct 16 REPLY by pltff. to Pretrial Statement.
Nov 13 APPEARANCE of Susanne M. Lee, as counsel for 

deft. CAL/N.
Nov 28 STATUS HEARING. Trial set Jan. 2, 1979 at 

10:00 A.M. (Rep. E. A. Kaufman) (N) Hart, J.

DATE

1978

PROCEEDINGS

Dec 6

Dec 7

Dec 8

Dec 8

Dec 21

Dec 22

Dec 26

Dec 28

Dec 29

NOTICE by defts. to take deposition of Tommy 
Wilson; Exhibit.

NOTICE by defts. to take deposition of Victor Dun­
bar.; Exhibit.

NOTICE by defts. to take deposition of Thomas 
Roberts; Exhibit.

NOTICE by defts. to take deposition of Francis 
Schwartz; Exhibit.

NOTICE by defts. to take deposition of Ellsworth 
Rapee; Exhibit.

DEPOSITION of Victor Dunbar for the deft.; Ex­
hibit A & B.

DEPOSITION of Francis M. Schwartz taken on 
12-18-78 for the deft.

DEPOSITION of Tommy L. Wilson taken on 12-13- 
78 for the deft.

STIPULATION of facts.

1979
Jan 2 TRIAL by Court begun; respited to 1-3-79 at 9:30 

A.M. (Rep. Joan Blair) Hart, J.
Jan 3 TRIAL resumed; concluded; counsel for each side 

present; proposed findings of fact and conclu­
sions of law by Feb. 1, 1979. (Rep. E. A. Kauf­
man) Hart, J.

Jan 5 EXHIBITS of pltff. # 1 , # 2  and #3-A  thru 
#4 . (C.R. blotter)

Jan 26 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings of Jan. 3, 1979;
pages 254-280; Rep. Thomas Dourlan; Court 
Copy.

Feb 1 NOTICE by deft, of filing proposed findings of fact 
and conclusions of law by deft.



DATE 

1979 

Feb 1

Feb 13 

Feb 26

Feb 27

Feb 28

Mar 30

Mar 30

Apr 27

June 06

1981 
Jan 6

PROCEEDINGS

PROPOSED Findings of Fact and Conclusions of 
Law by pltff.

DEPOSITION of Thomas J. Roberts for the deft.
FINDINGS of Fact and Conclusions of Law. (N) 

Hart, J.
ORDER filed Feb. 26, 1979 dismissing the action 

with prejudice. (N) Hart, J.

JUDGMENT filed 2-26-79 in favor of deft, and 
against the pltf. (N) HART, J.

TRANSCRIPT of proceeding of 1-2-79; (Rep: J. 
Blair) ; Pages 1-157; court copy.

TRANSCRIPT of proceedings of 1-3-79; (Rep: J. 
B lair): Pages 158-337; court copy.

NOTICE of appeal of pltf. from judgment entered 
on 2-26-79; $5.00 paid & credited to the U.S.; 
Copy mailed to Susanne M. Lee & Michael J. 
Ryan.

RECORD on appeal delivered to USCA; Receipt 
acknowledged (79-1574)

CERTIFIED COPY OF JUDGMENT from USCA 
dtd 7-31-80 reversing District Court’s decision 
and remanded case for further proceedings con­
sistent with the opinion of USCA filed herein; 
opinion.

Jan 6 BILL OF COSTS as taxed by Clerk of Court of 
Appeal against appellee in the amount of $150.20.

Jan 14 CHANGE OF ADDRESS for pltfs. counsel L.
Harold Aikens, Jr., 1613 Crittenden St. N.E. 
20017; tel: 755-6545. HART, J.

DATE PROCEEDINGS

1981 

Jan 14

Jan 19

Mar 25 

Apr 27

July 2

Oct 06

Dec 22

STATUS HEARING AFTER REMAND: deft, con­
sidering an appeal to the Supreme Court. Stay is 
granted until 2-20-81. Advise the Court in writ­
ing re: status. (Rep. Joan Blair) HART, J.

ORIGINAL RECORD returned from USCA, 1 vol., 
3 transcripts, 5 exhibits in manila envelope & 4 
depositions. (USCA#79-1574)

NOTICE by defts. of filing a copy of an Order by 
the Supreme Court dated 3-13-81, attachment.

NOTICE by defts. of filing a copy of the Petition 
for a Writ of Certiorari to the U.S.C.A. filed 
4-20-81, attachment.

NOTICE by defts. of filing a copy of the decision 
of the Supreme Court, 49 U.S.L.W. 3967 (June 
30, 1981); attachment.

CERTIFIED copy of Amended Judgment from 
USCA dated 9-8-81, Ordered & Adjudged Vacat­
ing the Judgment of the District Court and RE­
MANDING case to the District Court for further 
proceedings. OPINION (USCA#79-1574)

NOTICE by defts. of Filing; Attachment—Petition 
for writ of Certiorari to USCA.



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Civil Action No. 77-0303

Louis H. A ik en s , plaintiff

V.

W illiam F. Bolger, defendant

Filed Jan. 5, 1979

STIPULATION OF FACTS
Counsel for Defendant and counsel for Plaintiff hereby 

stipulate to the following facts for the purpose of trial 
in the above-captioned action:

1. Plaintiff, a black male, was an employee of the 
U.S. Postal Service (and its predecessor organization) in 
Washington, D.C. at all times pertinent to this complaint.

2. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as 
amended, is applicable to the U.S. Postal Service, an in­
dependent establishment in the executive branch of the 
U.S. government, which is headed by the Postmaster 
General.

3. As of February 7, 1974, the employee complement 
of the Washington, D.C. Post Office totaled 8,634 em­
ployees, 7,403 of whom were of a minority group back­
ground (85.7%).

4. As of the above date, 84.3% of Category I em­
ployees (covered by the 1973 National Agreement) were 
of a minority group background; 65.9% of Category II 
employees (not covered by the Agreement and in pay 
levels 1-14, except Postmasters and Supervisors) were 
of a minority group background; 51.6% of Category III 
employees (not covered by Agreement and in pay levels 
15 and above including all Supervisors and Postmasters) 
were of a minority group background.

5. From August 27, 1966 until January 8, 1972, 
plaintiff was the highest ranking black in the Wash­
ington, D.C. Post Office.

6. Plaintiff was not detailed or promoted above his 
position of Assistant Director, Operations Division for 
Transit Mails from August 27, 1966 to January 9, 1974.

7. From August 27, 1966 to January 9, 1974, the 
following twelve whites, all of whom, with the exception 
of one, were junior to plaintiff in supervisory seniority, 
progressed in their careers, being detailed and or pro­
moted to higher levels: Dominic M. Barranca, Lawrence 
V. Bateman, Jr., August J. Eckerl, Louis M. Lieb, 
Francis A. Miller, Ellsworth H. Rapee, Elmer C. Ray, 
Marvin G. Thomas, Carmen Errico, William E. Hahn, 
Donald J. Robertson, and Joseph J. Spelta.

8. Plaintiff had more overall seniority than his twelve 
white colleagues named in paragraph 7.

9. With one exception, that of J. J. Spelta, who was 
promoted on October 16, 1951, plaintiff, who was pro­
moted on October 1, 1952, held more seniority as a 
supervisor than his white colleagues.

10. With the exception of four of the supervisors 
named, all had salaries above the $24,066 earned by the 
plaintiff at the time he filed his complaint on January 
4, 1974.

11. There was no derogatory or negative information 
found in plaintiff’s Official Personnel Folder to indicate 
that he had not fulfilled the requirements of his position.

12. Of the twelve white supervisors named in para­
graph 7, the educational level of two, Bateman and 
Spelta, is unknown; Miller completed 10th grade; Rapee 
and Ray completed 11th grade; Eckerl, Lieb, Thomas, 
Errico, and Hahn completed high school; Barranca com­
pleted 8 months of college; and Robertson completed 1 
and 1/2  years of college.

13. Carlton Beall completed the 10th grade.
14. Plaintiff has a Master’s degree and completed 3 

years residence on his Ph.D.



8

15. Plaintiff participated in the first National Con­
ference on Equal Employment Opportunity in the Postal 
Service in September 1967; subsequently he was Chair­
man of the Postmaster’s E.E.O. Committee for a period 
of three years; and at the time of filing his E.E.O. com­
plaint had been the E.E.O. Administrative Officer for 
the City Post Office for approximately two years.

16. In 1968 Plaintiff was rated as “an outstanding 
supervisor whose management abilities were far above 
average.”

17. Plaintiff had as many, or more, training and de­
velopment courses and seminars as did the twelve white 
supervisors.

18. The administrative procedure to assign a manage­
ment official to a detail involved only the preparation 
of POD Form 1723, “Assignment Order”, signed by an 
official with authority over the vacant position; the nor­
mal procedure is to detail an employee for a period not 
to exceed 89 days, but the detail may be extended by 
another Form 1723.

19. From August 1966 to JEP in March 1973, there 
were only four positions higher than plaintiff’s position 
in the Washington, D.C. Post Office: Director, Installa­
tion Services (PFS-17); Assistant Director, Operations 
Division for Distribution (PFS-16); Director, Operations 
Division (PFS-17); and Postmaster or Officer-in-Charge 
(PFS-18).

20. The following white person was detailed into the 
position of Director, Installation Services: L.M. Lieb 
(7 /26 /71), (10/26/71), (9 /9 /72  until retirement in De­
cember 1973).

21. The following white persons were detailed and/or 
promoted into the position of Assistant Director, Opera­
tions Division for Distribution: L.M. Lieb, (5 /4 /71), 
(11/14/71); E.C. Ray, (7 /26 /71), (10/22/71); F.A. 
Miller, (5 /26 /73), 8 /24 /73), (11/21/73) ; M.G. Thomas, 
(2 /17 /73), (5 /17 /73); D.M. Barranca, (11/6 /71), (9 / 
8 /72), (12 /6 /72); L.V. Bateman, Jr., (2 /21/70).

22. The following white persons were detailed and/or 
promoted into the position of Director, Operations Di­
vision: D.M. Barranca, (2 /17 /73), (5 /17 /73), (8 /15 / 
73), (11/12/73); E.H. Rapee (detailed 5 /4/71 until 
promotion on 3 /4 /7 2 ), (3 /4 /72-6 /23 /72); E.C. Ray (6 / 
24/72), (9 /24/72), (12/23/72).

23. E.H. Rapee was detailed into the position of Of­
ficer-In-Charge on June 24,1972.

24. Subsequent to JEP, the following white persons 
were detailed and/or promoted to positions at the follow­
ing levels higher than plaintiff’s level (PES-20): F.A. 
Miller (PES-22); C. Errico (PE S-26); M.G. Thomas 
(PES-26); D.J. Robertson (PES-24); A.J. Eckerl (PES- 
21); J.J. Spelta (PES-23); W.E. Hahn (PES-22).

25. From July 1971, when C.G. Beall vacated the 
postmaster’s position, until JEP in March 1973, there 
was only one promotion board (February 1972) for the 
positions of Director, Operations Division, and Assistant 
Director, Operations Division for Distribution, resulting 
in E.H. Rupee’s promotion to Director, Operations Di­
vision (PFS-17) and in L.M. Lieb’s promotion to As­
sistant Director, Operations Division for Distribution 
(PFS-16) on March 4,1972.

26. For both of the positions described in paragraph 
25, the plaintiff was the second choice of the Promotion 
Advisory Board, with the selections being forwarded to 
the Officer-In-Charge on February 25, 1972.

27. On November 6, 1971, D.M. Barranca (PFS-14) 
was detailed to the position of Acting Assistant Director, 
Operations Division for Distribution. On February 25, 
1972, a promotion advisory board ranked Mr. Barranca 
third behind plaintiff.

28. On May 4, 1971, L.M. Lieb (PFS-13) was detailed 
to Acting Assistant Director, Operations Division for 
Distribution for approximately 3 months, then subse­
quently detailed to Acting Director, Installation Services 
(PFS-16) twice until November 14, 1971, when he was 
again detailed to Acting Assistant Director, Operations



10

Division for Distribution, thus enhancing his experience 
in higher level jobs.

29. On May 4, 1971, E.H. Rapee (PFS-15) was de­
tailed to Acting Director, Operations Division, where he 
remained until his promotion to that same position on 
March 4, 1972, thus gaining the experience for the job.

30. Both L.M. Lieb and E.H. Rapee subsequently were 
detailed to new jobs within a short period of time after 
their promotions of March 4, 1972; L.M. Lieb was again 
detailed on September 9, 1972, to Acting Director, In­
stallation Services, where he remained until his retire­
ment in December 1973, and E.H. Rapee was detailed to 
the position of Officer-In-Charge on June 24, 1972, where 
he remained until January 1974.

31. On September 8, 1972, D.M. Barranca was de­
tailed to the position of Assistant Director, Operations 
Division for Distribution; this was only six months after 
he had been selected below plaintiff for that position by 
the Promotion Advisory Board.

32. The Washington, D.C. Post Office did not post or 
solicit interested personnel to fill details; individuals were 
selected by higher level supervisors.

33. Mr. E.H. Rapee believed that postal experience 
was the predominant qualification factor considered for 
detail or promotion.

34. In July 1972, Carlton Beall nominated three per­
sons for the Postmaster position, none of whom was the 
plaintiff.

35. The Regional Office added the plaintiff’s name as 
a candidate for Postmaster in 1972, feeling he was quali­
fied for the position.

36. After plaintiff’s name was added in 1972 as a 
candidate, the list of four names was never submitted 
to the selection board for a period of nine months while 
plaintiff was eligible for consideration.

37. On March 3, 1973, plaintiff’s position. Assistant 
Director, Operations Division for Transit Mails, was 
ranked at PES-20.

11

38. As a result of plaintiff’s position being ranked 
at PES-20, he was no longer eligible for the position of 
Postmaster, Washington, D.C.

39. Carlton Beall submitted the same three names 
again in July 1973, after JEP had reduced plaintiff’s 
position level below that eligible for consideration as a 
candidate for Postmaster.

40. In the 19 months preceding January 4, 1974, E.H. 
Rapee was detailed to the position of Officer-In-Charge, 
City Post Office, Washington, D.C. and he was Beall’s 
first selection for the Postmaster position.

/ s /  L. Harold Aikens, Jr.
L. Harold A ik en s , J r.
615 F Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20004
Attorney for Plaintiff

/ s /  Susanne M. Lee 
SusANNE M. Lee 
Special Assistant U.S. Attorney 
U.S. Court House 
Room 3718
3rd &  Constitution Ave., N.W. 
Washington, D.C. 20001 
(202) 472-4759
Attorney for Defendant



12

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

No. 81-1044

U nited States Postal Service Board op Governors,
PETITIONER

V.

Louis H. A ik ens

ORDER ALLOWING CERTIORARI 

Filed March 22,1982

The petition herein for a writ of certiorari to the 
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Co­
lumbia Circuit is granted.

i t  V .  •• t O V lI N M I li r  pailfTMl* OPriCIt 1962 9 7 9 9 0 4  6 9 4