PM LAWSUIT DISMISSED
3/9/00

MORNING NEWS

Ron Wood The, Morning News

For the second time in as many tries, a federal discrimination lawsuit filed by Fayetteville Postmaster Linda Patrick 
has been thrown out.

Lawyers for the U.S. Postal Service and Postmaster William Henderson recently asked U.S. District Judge Jimm Larry Hendren 
to dismiss a federal sexual-discrimination and slander lawsuit filed by Patrick.

They said her suit fails to state any legitimate claims, is based on complaints that were found to be groundless and 
that she failed to exhaust all remedies available prior to suing.

Hendren, on Wednesday, agreed and dismissed the case, saying Patrick has failed to exhaust the administrative remedies 
available to her under federal law. Hendren also said the court has no jurisdiction over Patrick's breach-of-contract claims.

Henderson and the postal service had also filed an answer denying all allegations of wrongdoing by Patrick.

Patrick, who last year dropped a similar federal lawsuit alleging she was slandered and libeled by several local and 
nation postal unions and their representatives and local union representatives who had personal animosity toward her, 
filed the latest suit last October, claiming she was discriminated against by the postal service and Henderson.

The newer suit was based on, and raised, many of the same allegations contained in the previous suit.

Patrick claimed that, after being assigned as postmaster at Fayetteville, she was subjected to gender discrimination 
by being treated differently than male postmasters; that postal authorities failed to properly and adequately investigate 
her complaints lodged through administrative procedures; and that she was subjected to a hostile work environment and 
retaliation after she complained. She also claimed invasion of privacy and slander.

Patrick claimed that, after being assigned to Fayetteville, she started experiencing sexual harassment from a small 
number of employees so she notified management and informed them of the sexual-harassing activities and cartoons that 
were being directed at her.

She claimed the complaints were not properly investigated and that she was then reassigned to another facility.

Patrick also claimed that employment information about her was also wrongly released and that later she was compelled 
"to return to the Fayetteville postal facility over the expressed concerns by the plaintiff for her own safety, welfare 
and the concerns for other non-hostile employees and their working environment."

Patrick is the current postmaster at Fayetteville.

Patrick claimed that labor-union members in Fayetteville slandered and libeled her and that they published a letter 
that was -- according to her previous suit -- an "outrageous attempt" to equate the Fayetteville Post Office, under 
the supervision of Patrick, to the "murderous atmosphere" at post offices in Edmond, Okla., and Royal Oak, Mich., 
where shootings by disgruntled employees had occurred.

She claimed the false and incorrect information was not rescinded when proven false by an investigation.

Patrick was seeking more than $300,000 in damages.

Henderson and the postal service painted a different picture of the situation. According to their statement of facts 
in the case, Patrick was moved to the Rogers Post Office after local union representatives expressed concern that there 
was a potential for violence at the Fayetteville facility and that Patrick was the source of the problems in Fayetteville.

Patrick was then asked to move to the Rogers facility while postal officials investigated the issues raised. But she 
refused and was placed on administrative leave, according to the post office brief.

A review team came up with several recommendations, including having Patrick take the study results to the employees 
and attempt to resolve the issues and providing her with training in interpersonal skills and human relations. 
She was then transferred to Rogers.

They said that Patrick then began filing claims with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and post office, 
ranging from sexual discrimination to slander and libel to retaliation.

They say the claims by Patrick were unfounded, without merit and dismissed. They said her latest claims were based 
on those groundless claims and should be dismissed.

 							-0-