Opinion
Case No. 97-4041-SAC.
October 10, 2001.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This case comes before the court on plaintiff's motion to request clarification of rulings (Dk. 180), and defendant's motion to stay operation or enforcement of judgment (Dk. 182). Each party has responded to the other's motion. (Dk. 183 184).
Plaintiff's motion requests that this court stipulate for the record what promotions, step increases, seniority advancements, etc. plaintiff would have received to date and/or what plaintiff's current position should rightfully be absent retaliation by the defendant. (Dk. 180, p. 2, 5). Plaintiff does not contend that the court's previous orders (Dks. 177 178) were unclear in any respect. Instead, plaintiff states that she filed this motion because she believes that calculations which remain to be done pursuant to the court's order, such as the determination of past step increases owed plaintiff, will be done by persons who have discriminated against her in the past and who will do so again.
The court's order requires a calculation of plaintiff's past step increases and other similar matters to be done by employees of the postal service. The court believes that due to the nature of employment with the postal service, this determination is purely ministerial in nature and is based upon a predetermined procedure. In other words, it leaves no room for subjectivity, manipulation, or variance. Such a calculation cannot be performed by this court, as plaintiff requests, because plaintiff has had her day in court but offered no evidence regarding the amount of step increases or benefits, although plaintiff did prove her entitlement to the categories of damages stated in the court's previous orders.
Further, the court does not agree that the individuals employed by the defendant who will make the remaining calculations have been shown to harbor ill will against the plaintiff such that they will not comply with this court's directive. Given the fact that such individuals are under the direct order of this court, the court would be surprised indeed at any attempt on their part to avoid full compliance therewith.
Plaintiff's motion additionally takes issue with the court's determination that plaintiff is entitled to the current position of a part-time flexible carrier. Plaintiff seeks intervening promotions. The court's order made clear that plaintiff is to be placed in the pay status of a part-time flexible carrier, and to remain therein until the date in the future, if any, that plaintiff is promoted through the regular course of events. The order reflects the court's finding that there is no basis in the evidence for finding that plaintiff would have received any other position in the past absent the retaliation, or for ordering the defendant now to promote plaintiff in the future. To the extent that plaintiff's motion asks the court to reconsider, alter or amend that ruling and requests plaintiff s placement in a full-time career carrier position, in a postmaster position, or in any position other than the part-time flexible carrier position described in the court's previous order, it is denied.
Defendant's motion for a stay is based upon the fact that it has 60 days to appeal, i.e., until November 13, 2001. The court's order filed September 14, 2001, obligates defendant to pay plaintiff certain sums within thirty days thereafter, or by October 14, 2001. Defendant has not represented that it intends to appeal, but seeks a stay for approximately 30 days after October 14th so that it will not need to pay the judgment prior to the appeal date, preserving the status quo until then. The court finds this request to be reasonable, and fair to both parties. Based upon the defendant's representations in its motion, which representations the court finds to be binding, the court does not believe that plaintiff will suffer any undue hardship by virtue of the requested stay. Defendant's motion for a stay of execution shall therefore be granted.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for clarification and/or reconsideration (Dk. 180) is denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant's motion to stay operation or enforcement of judgment (Dk. 182) is granted. The court hereby stays the operation and effect of its previous order and judgment for approximately 30 days, and orders defendant to take the affirmative action regarding plaintiff as stated in the court's prior order, by November 14, 2001, instead of by October 14, 2001. This stay shall be immediately lifted on November 14, 2001 without further order of the court.