Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—AGE—D. Utah: USPS prevails on summary judgment in 57-year-old letter carrier’s ADEA case, (Feb 12, 2026)

By Ursula Furi-Perry, J.D.

The letter carrier failed to demonstrate a causal connection between the protected activity and the disciplinary actions, and he failed to show circumstances giving rise to an inference of age discrimination.

A letter carrier who had been disciplined for various policy violations sued the USPS for age discrimination and retaliation, claiming the disciplinary actions and termination were motivated by age bias and retaliation for his EEO activities. A federal court in Utah granted summary judgment for the USPS, holding that the employee failed to demonstrate a causal connection between the protected activity and the disciplinary actions, as the nearly two-year gap between his EEO complaint and termination was too long to support an inference of retaliation based solely on timing. Moreover, the court held that although the employee belonged to a protected age group and experienced adverse employment actions, he failed to show circumstances giving rise to an inference of age discrimination (Peterson v. Steiner, No. 4:23-cv-00119-AMA-PK (D. Utah Feb. 9, 2026)).

The plaintiff worked as a full-time letter carrier for the United States Postal Service (USPS) from 1997 until his removal in November 2020. He transferred in 2017 to the relatively small Manti, Utah, post office where he served as the only full-time carrier with a regular route. His duties included daily delivery routes, coordination with assistant carriers, and compliance with USPS safety and reporting policies, which required, among other things, daily check-ins regarding delivery estimates, adherence to traffic laws while driving postal vehicles, and approval for overtime.

Workplace incidents. Over time, the employee accumulated several workplace incidents, including occasionally failing to make required check-in calls, resulting in unauthorized overtime; a resident complaint that he failed to yield while driving his postal vehicle; spraining his ankle after using an unauthorized exit at work; parking his postal truck in a traffic lane while delivering mail; and failing to stop at a stop sign near a school. The latter two violations resulted in a 14-day suspension and then a Notice of Removal terminating his employment, and he had also received several previous disciplinary actions that were later removed.

The employee admitted both of the more serious violations but challenged the discipline through grievance procedures; those challenges were unsuccessful. Separately, he had contacted an Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) counselor in December 2018 alleging workplace issues. After his termination, he filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, alleging age discrimination and retaliation under ADEA and claiming the disciplinary actions and termination were motivated by age bias and retaliation for his EEO activity. The USPS moved for summary judgment, arguing that the discipline resulted from legitimate safety violations rather than discrimination or retaliation.

Retaliation. Regarding the retaliation claim, the court applied the McDonnell-Douglas burden-shifting framework. The employee engaged in protected activity by contacting the EEO counselor, the court noted, and his suspension and termination qualified as materially adverse actions. However, he failed to demonstrate a causal connection between the protected activity and those actions, the court held, as the nearly two-year gap between his EEO complaint and termination was too long to support an inference of retaliation based solely on timing. Moreover, he presented no additional evidence suggesting retaliatory motive. USPS, by contrast, articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons, namely the employee’s admitted safety violations, and he could not show in return that those reasons were pretextual.

Age discrimination. Regarding the age discrimination claim, the court held that although the employee belonged to a protected age group and experienced adverse employment actions, he failed to show circumstances giving rise to an inference of age-related bias. There were no age-related comments, no similarly situated younger employees treated differently, and no evidence connecting his age to disciplinary decisions. Importantly, the employee himself admitted violating safety rules, undermining any claim that USPS’s stated rationale was false or discriminatory. Because he could not establish prima facie cases or demonstrate pretext, the court concluded that no reasonable jury could find discrimination or retaliation.

The case is No. 4:23-cv-00119-AMA-PK.

Judge: Allen, A.

Attorneys: David J. Holdsworth (Law Offices of David J. Holdsworth) for Scott Peterson. Tiffany M. Romney, U.S. Attorney's Office, for Louis DeJoy and U.S. Postal Service.

Cases: AgeDiscrimination Discrimination Retaliation PublicEmployees UtahNews