In May 2004, Plaintiff became a letter carrier with the USPS. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant retaliated against him after he filed numerous grievances and EEO complaints. He argues that his disciplinary actions began around the same time and are separated from his protected activity by only a two-month period. Because of this, Plaintiff contends that a causal connection exists between his protected activities and his subsequent disciplinary actions.

As Defendant proffers, Plaintiff was placed in off-duty status and without pay on September 9, 2013, for violating internal postal regulations because he operated a vehicle with a suspended license. Defendant contends that it became aware of Plaintiff’s license suspension only that day and placed Plaintiff in an off duty status immediately upon learning of the suspension. However, Plaintiff contends that his supervisors were well aware of his license suspension since at least February 26, 2013, but waited six months to bring disciplinary action against him. Plaintiff also contends that, in any case, he had a valid occupational license to drive that day. If Plaintiff’s contention are true, then they could support a retaliation claim for his September 9, 2013 placement in off-duty without pay status based on his protected activities of filing a grievance upon receipt of the NOPR and his July 31, 2013 EEOC charge.

Cabral v. Brennan, 2016 WL 737949 (W.D. Tex., 2016).