Perez v. United States Postal Service (76 F. Supp. 3d 1168, 2015)

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND MEMORANDUM ORDER

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ, District Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION

This case is before the Court on Plaintiffs claims against Defendant United States Postal Service (the “Postal Service”) under the Occupational Safety and Health Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 651 et seq. (the “Act”). Plaintiff, the Secretary of Labor (the “Secretary”) alleges that the Postal. Service violated Section 11(c)(1) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. § 660(c)(1), by retaliating against its employee, Arthur Williams (“Williams”), because of his protected activities under the Act. A five-day bench trial, beginning on September 15, 2014, was held to adjudicate the Secretary’s claims. At the conclusion of the trial, the Court took the matter under advisement and ordered supplemental briefing on the appropriate scope of injunctive relief. The Court has now considered the evidence presented at trial, the exhibits admitted into evidence, the parties’ trial and supplemental briefs, the parties’ proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and the arguments of counsel at trial. The Court, being fully advised, enters judgment in favor of the Secretary and makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.

II. BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

This case concerns the Postal Service’s actions taken against Williams following his engagement in activities indisputably protected under the Act, including transfer, de facto demotion, antagonistic investigative interviews, a letter of warning, enforced leave, public humiliation, and refusal to consider Williams for a promotion. The Secretary’s Amended Complaint asserted that the Postal Service retaliated against Williams and subjected him to a hostile work environment because of his protected activity in violation of Section 11(c)(1) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. § 660(c)(1) (“Section 11(c)”). Dkt. # 31 (“FAC”).

The Court denied the Postal Service’s motion for summary judgment and reserved ruling on the Secretary’s hostile work environment claim. Dkt. # 67. The Court requested, and the parties provided, supplemental briefing on whether a hostile work environment theory of liability was cognizable under Section 11(c). Dkt. ## 68-70. The Court also granted in part the Secretary’s motion for sanctions for spoliation of evidence. Dkt. ## 66, 71. Pursuant to its Order, the Court drew a rebuttable presumption at trial against the Postal Service’s performance-related justification for adverse employment actions taken with respect to Williams, following his protected activities. Dkt. # 71.

The Court held a bench trial on September 15-17, 2014 and September 22-23, 2014 and heard closing arguments on October 22, 2014. The following constitute the Court’s Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a). To the extent certain findings of fact may be deemed conclusions of law, or certain conclusions of law be deemed findings of fact, they shall each be considered conclusions or findings, respectively.

III. FINDINGS OF FACT

A. Williams’ Initial Employment with the Postal Service

1. The Postal Service is an employer subject to the requirements of the Act. Dkt. # 72, p. 3.

2. The Postal Service first employed Arthur B. Williams in 1995 and has continuously employed Williams to the present. Id.

3. ' Williams initially worked as a mail carrier and then as a mechanic in bargaining unit positions. Trial Tr. Vol. 2 at 52-53.

4. In March 2002, Williams was promoted to a non-bargaining unit, management position on the Executive and Administrative (“EAS”) pay scale: an EAS 15 Human Resources Specialist in the Safety Department of Defendant’s Seattle District. Trial Tr. Vol. 2 at 54:22-55:17; Vol. 3 at 60:7-20. In September 2003, Williams was further promoted to an EAS 16 Safety Specialist in the Safety Department of the Seattle District. Dkt. # 72, p. 3.

5. As both an EAS 15 Human Resource Specialist and an EAS 16 Safety Specialist, Williams was a safety generalist, with responsibility for tasks associated with Defendant’s facilities as assigned by the Manager of Safety. Id. These, tasks included providing safety advice and processing safety forms at over 300 small postal facilities or area offices throughout Washington. Trial Tr. Vol. 2 at 55:7-17.

6. In October 2006, Williams was promoted to an EAS 17 Safety Specialist, as a result of which his regular office was moved from the Seattle District Office, then located in Seattle’s Queen Anne neighborhood (the “District Office”), to the Seattle Processing and Distribution Center (hereinafter, the “P & DC” or the “Plant”) in south Seattle. Dkt. # 72, p. 3. As an EAS 17, Williams was responsible for Safety Department activities at four large Postal Service facilities: Seattle P & DC, Everett Processing and Distribution Facility, South Delivery and Distribution Center, and East Delivery and Distribution Center, all facilities with over 1,000 employees. Id.

7. As an EAS 16 Safety Specialist, Williams worked for then-Safety Manager Jay Kaseman. In his Fiscal Year 2005 and 2006 annual evaluations, Kaseman ranked Williams as an exceptional contributor on two core requirements, a high contributor on one, and a contributor as to oral communication. Exs. 2, 3.

8. The EAS 17 position required Williams to plan, coordinate and evaluate safety and health activities and trainings, to conduct periodic inspections and evaluations for hazardous conditions and unsafe work practices, to investigate accidents and fatalities, to ensure management enforcement of compliance with safety and health policies and regulations, and to attend labor-management safety and health committee meetings. Id.; Trial Tr. Vol. 2. 61:14-24.

9. Williams frequently made reference to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”) standards in his EAS 17 role and was involved in working with non-management and management employees to resolve OSHA complaints. Id. at 64:20-22; 140:14-23. He became known by the nickname “Little OSHA” at the Seattle P & DC. Trial Tr. Vol. 2 at 65:19-66:4.

10. Kelly Johnson became Manager of Safety in summer of 2007, at which point she began to oversee Williams’ performance. Trial. Tr. Vol. 1 at 100:6-23. Her Fiscal Year 2007 annual performance review for Williams ranked him as an exceptional contributor in one respect, high contributor in another, and contributor in two respects. Ex. 4.

B. Williams’ February 20, 2008 Protected Activity

11. On February 20, 2008, Williams engaged in protected activity within the meaning of the Act by assisting causal employee Naseem Banani in filing a complaint with OSHA. Dkt. # 72, p. 3.

12. Banani, a causal (i.e. temporary, non-union) employee at the P & DC, approached Sue Fesler, a union steward, and James White, a craft employee and union safety advocate, about breathing difficulties she was experiencing while working on the flat sorter machine. Trial Tr. Vol. 1 at 46:3-14. Banani told Fesler that she had explained the situation to her supervisors but had not received any assistance. Id. at 47:5-11.

13. Fesler and White took Banani to Williams’ office at the P & DC. Id. at 48:24-49:25. Banani repeated her account to Williams, reporting that her supervisors had threatened to terminate her and that she had received no training as to her rights. Id.; Vol. 2. 71:24-73:2. Williams informed Banani that, though she had no union rights, she could contact the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) or OSHA. Id.; Vol. 1 at 49:6-13. He provided Banani with the phone number to OSHA. Id.

14. On February 20, 2008, Williams sent an email to Banani’s supervisor, Manager of Distribution Operations (“MDO”) Pamela Cook, and Cook’s supervisor, James Guffey, informing them of his meeting with Banani. His email stated that Banani felt she would be fired and that “OSHA will be reviewing the results to determine if we have a health issue.” Ex. 15.

15. On February 25, 2008, Banani filed a complaint with OSHA. Dkt. # 72, p. 3; see also Ex. 16. Banani testified that following her complaint, ■ Cook berated her, interrogating her as to why she went to Williams and complained to the EEOC and OSHA. Trial Tr. Vol. 1 at 33:7-15. Banani testified that Cook instructed her to “take the [OSHA and EEOC] complaint[s] back” if she “ever want[ed] to work again for the Postal Service [ ].” Id. at 33:1923. Banani further testified that Cook stated, “You know, Naseem, no one can touch us. No one here has ever done anything. They try to, but no one can touch us, so go do what you want to do.” Id. at 33:24-35:2.

16. As MDO, Cook reported to Senior MDO James Guffey, who reported to Senior Plant Manager Don Jacobus. Trial Tr. Vol. 3, 5:21-6:1. Cook has since been promoted to Senior Plant Manager in Las Vegas, Nevada, where she currently serves. Id. at 4:3-17.

C. Responses to Williams’ Protected Activity

17. On February 26, 2008, OSHA sent notification to the Postal Service of Bana-ni’s health complaint. Ex. 16.

18. According to Jacobus, OSHA complaints were handled according to a predetermined process, which involved investigation by the Safety Specialist. Trial Tr. Vol. 5, 24:20-26:3. On this occasion, Jaco-bus informed MDO Carlo Salazar by email on February 27, 2008 that he did not want Williams to “have anything to do with [Banani’s complaint].” Ex. 19; see also Trial Tr. Vol. 5, 34:3-18.

19. On February 26, 2008, Jacobus sent Williams an email, informing him that his “continuing and obvious interest in representing the bargaining unit will not be tolerated. Until further notice you will refrain from ANY professional dialog with the bargaining unit with exception of your domiciled safety advocates and any team meetings or projects.” Ex. 17 (capitalization in original). Williams experienced the email as stressful, hurtful, and degrading. Trial Tr. Vol. 2 at 75:1-18.

20. Jacobus had not personally observed any examples of poor job performance by Williams. Trial Tr. Vol. 5 at 10:23-11:2. He had also never previously documented or expressed in writing concerns about Williams’ job performance. Id. at 35:6-16.

21. As Senior Plant Manager, Jacobus occupied the highest position at the P & DC, reporting directly to the Area Vice President for the Western Region. Id. at 22:4-9. If the P & DC received a high number of OSHA citations, the matter could arise in Jacobus’ performance evaluation. Id. at 23:2-9.

22. On or about February 26, 2008, Williams was assigned to work at the Seattle District Office in Queen Anne. Dkt. # 72, p. 4. While domiciled at the District Office, Williams did not suffer a reduction in salary or compensation. Id. '

23. Jacobus viewed Williams’ transfer as terminating his role as a Safety Specialist at the P & DC. Trial Tr. Vol. 5, 30:23-31:1.

24. Williams’ abrupt transfer, without notice or explanation, was a subject of discussion and confusion among craft employees at the P & DC. Prior to his departure, craft employees saw him on the P & DC floor daily. Trial Tr. Vol. 1, 51:24-52:10.

25. The conditions of Williams’ employment changed sharply upon his transfer. Williams was first assigned to work at an administrative desk in an open area, rather than in a cubicle or office, and was not provided a telephone. Trial Tr. Vol. 2, 104:25-105:18. He was initially permitted only' to read emails. Id. at 76:11-15. Williams was the sole employee stationed in the open area. Trial Tr. Vol. 3 at 85:21-86:13.

, 26. Williams was subsequently assigned to work in a windowless file storage room in the Labor Relations area. It was wintertime and cold in the storage room. Labor Relations Manager Charles Kos-micki had never seen any other employee working in the storage room. Id. at 86:14-87:12.

27. Kosmicki was not consulted prior to Williams’ transfer to the District Office in contravention of protocol. Id. at 81:7-82:10.

28. On March 3, 2008, OSHA notified the Postal Service of a complaint of retaliation by Banani. Dkt. # 72, p. 4. That same day, Johnson informed Williams by email that she would be conducting a “formal interview” with him on March 5, 2008. Ex. 23.

29. On March 3 and 4, 2008, Postal Service managers Carlo Salazar, Pamela Cook and John Griffin submitted emails to James . Guffey, listing “issues” with Williams. Exs. 21-26. None of these grievance were raised prior to Williams’ February 20, 2008 protected activity and several were admitted at trial to constitute legitimate enforcement of safety regulations.

30. In a March 3, 2008 email to Guffey, Cook characterized Williams’ decision to inform Banani of her rights rather than instruct her to discuss her grievance with management as having “put this company at risk.” Ex. 21. Griffin also criticized Williams for safeguarding the privacy of complainants and acting on all anonymous complaints. Ex 26.

31. Griffins’ March 4, 2008 email included a complaint regarding Williams’ handling of a January 30, 2008 forklift incident, in which Williams was nearly struck by a speeding forklift driver. Id. Griffins’ characterization of Williams as acting with hostility toward the driver is inconsistent with the contemporaneous reports of witnesses who described Williams’actions as appropriate and “necessary” to prevent injuries to other workers. Exs. 9-11. The forklift incident was resolved by early February, with retraining of the driver and issuance to him of a letter of warning. Trial Tr. Vol. 2, 86:24-88:8; Ex. 122, Supplemental Response to RFA No. 33.

32. On March 5, 2008, Johnson conducted the first of four investigative interviews of Williams. Johnson had neither received training to conduct an investigative interview nor previously subjected a subordinate to one. Trial Tr. Vol. 2, 8:16-22. Johnson did not inform Williams of the purpose of the interview, and Williams experienced it as demeaning and stressful. Id. at 80:12-81:3.

33. In contrast to Johnson’s interview of Williams, Postal Service investigative interviews routinely begin with an explanation of their purpose. Trial Tr. Vol. 3, 68:9-18.

34. On March 12, 2008, Johnson sent an email to the Postal Service’s Western Area Safety Manager, characterizing Williams as having done “[ejverything but dialing [OSHA] for [Banani].” Ex. 30.

35. On March 14, 2008, OSHA notified the Postal Service of a safety and health complaint made by one of its employees regarding an allergic reaction to certain equipment. Dkt. # 72, p. 4. •

■ 36. Also on March 14, 2008, Johnson sent Williams an email instructing him to spend the entire following week cleaning his office at the P & DC. Ex. 32. The email placed specific restrictions on Williams, among which it instructed him not to converse with craft employees, not to go onto the workroom floor unless directed or accompanied by Jacobus or Guf-fey, and not to leave the confines of his office, the restroom, cafeteria, or supply area unless directed. Id.; Ex. 34.

37. Restrictions on communications between a Safety Specialist and craft employees and on the Specialist’s ability to walk the workroom floor are abnormal and would “hobble” the Specialist from understanding and investigating hazards, as per his or her role. Trial Tr. Vol. 3, 67:9-77:5.

38. On March 19, 2008, Williams accompanied OSHA inspectors on an inspection of the P & DC related to the allergic reaction complaint. The following day, Williams informed Johnson and Guffey that he had participated in the inspection.

39. On March 20, 2008, Johnson sent Williams an email reiterating his work restrictions and instructing him not to enter the workroom floor. Ex. 36.

40. Johnson conducted a second investigative interview with Williams on March 28, 2008, during which she questioned him about his interaction with Banani and inquired for the first time into his January 2008 interaction with the forklift driver. Dkt. # 72, p. 4.

41. On April 9, 2008, Johnson sent an email to the entire Safety Department instructing Williams to “do [his] part at the front desk (phones, etc.) and with processing accidents” and instructing him to give the password for his phone in the P & DC Safety Office to Carmen Dixon. Ex. 42. Thirteen minutes later, Johnson emailed Dixon instructing her to ask Williams for information regarding a Plant Safety Specialist’s job duties, including “who takes care of the OSHA programs each year.” Ex. 43.

42. On April 11, 2008, Johnson conducted a third investigative interview of Williams, again inquiring into his assistance to Banani. Dkt. # 72, p. 4. Williams found the interview degrading and stressful, and experienced stomach pains immediately following it.

43. Also on April 11, 2008, Johnson completed Williams’ mid-year performance evaluation for fiscal year 2008. For the first time, Johnson identified defects in Williams’ oral communication with Seattle P & DC personnel, characterizing eommu-nication with Williams as “difficult” and Williams as “uncooperative[ ].” Ex. 44. Five months prior, in his November 2007 performance evaluation, Johnson had ranked Williams as a “high contributor” in oral communication and remarked that he “is dedicated to Safety and continues to work on improving the Safety profile at the facilities he supports through communication.” Ex. 4.

D. Williams’ FMLA Leave

44. On April 11, 2008, following the third investigative interview, Williams requested and was approved for leave under the Family Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) for what he described as a “stress reaction.” Dkt. # 72, p. 4.

45. According to Williams’ treating physicians, Williams’ stress began on February 26, 2008 and was exacerbated by the April 11, 2008 investigative interview. Ex. 45.

46. While on leave, Williams received medical treatment for symptoms including sleep and eating issues, headaches, depression, and stress. .Williams began taking three to four medications to alleviate his symptoms. Williams had only previously met with a psychiatrist once following his brother’s death and had never previously been prescribed medications by a psychiatrist. Trial Tr. Vol. 2, 95:15-97:9; 98:13-99:5.

47. On April 18, 2008 Williams filed a whistleblower complaint with the Region X OSHA office in Seattle. On April 21, 2008, OSHA notified the Postal Service of Williams’ complaint of retaliation. Dkt. # 72, p. 4.

48. On May 9, 2008, in response to a complaint that Williams had made through the National Association of Postal Supervisors (“NAPS”), Johnson wrote that the role of a Safety Specialist was to prevent OSHA complaints. Ex. 47.

49. Williams’ physicians submitted letters to the Postal Service in May and July of 2008 seeking to extend Williams’ medical leave. Id. at p. 5.

50. While on leave, Williams received multiple phone calls and certified letters from Johnson demanding to know how long he would be out and about the details of his leave, which he experienced as harassing. Trial Tr. Vol. 2, 100:14-23. Between June 28 and July 24, 2008, Johnson sent Williams three letters notifying him that the communications from his treating physician were insufficient and warning that his leave could be downgraded to annual, sick,.or unpaid leave. Ex’s. 53, 54, 59.

51. On July 11, 2008, Williams made a whistleblower complaint to OSHA asserting that the Postal Service was interfering with his medical leave in retaliation for his protected activities. OSHA notified the Postal Service of the complaint of retaliation on July 16, 2008. Dkt. #72, p. 5.

52. On July 21, 2008, Williams’ treating physician, Dr. Rutherford Hayes, sent a letter to the Postal Service clearing him to return to work and stating that it is important that Williams be permitted to work for a different supervisor based on the distress he had experienced. Ex. 57.

53. On July 24, 2008, Johnson notified Williams of her receipt of Dr. Hayes’ letters and instructed him to request reasonable accommodation if he believed that he was disabled or to request a voluntary downgrade to an open position. Johnson warned Williams that failure to respond “could result in an absence without leave status.” Ex. 59.

54. On July 28, 2008, Williams attempted to return to work from his FMLA leave, whereupon he was called to a meeting with Johnson in Kosmicki’s office. Williams’ request that a NAPS representative be present was denied by Johnson, who informed him and Kosmieki that no discipline would result from the meeting. Trial Tr. Vol, 2,101:3-17.

55. At the conclusion of the meeting, Johnson informed Williams that he had insufficient documentation to return to work. Id. at 102:1-14. That same day, she wrote Williams a formal letter notifying him that he would be placed on enforced leave after 30 days. The letter stated that Williams would remain on enforced leave until he was “able to furnish medical documentation to the satisfaction of management” showing that he was able to perform the duties of his position. Ex. 61.

56. Enforced leave is a disciplinary measure resulting in leave without pay. Labor Relations is required to be consulted regarding all disciplinary actions pertaining to EAS-level employees, including enforced-leave letters. Trial Tr. Vol. 3 at 63:8-16.

57. Labor Relations was not consulted in the decision to place Williams on enforced leave. Id. at 92:4-22.

58. On August 1, 2008, Williams requested an accommodation from the Postal Service’s Reasonable Accommodation Committee to allow him to return to work for the Postal Service for a supervisor other than Johnson. Dkt. # 72, p. 5. Johnson responded directly to his request by letter on August 4, 2008, informing Williams that his request for accommodation was deficient and referencing the proposal to place him on enforced leave. Ex. 64.

59. It is atypical for a reasonable accommodations response to reference enforced leave. Trial Tr. Vol. 3, 97:18-25.

60. On August 29, 2008, the Postal Service placed Williams on enforced leave by Letter of Decision. Ex. 68. Labor Relations was not consulted in and did not author the letter.

61. Lacking income, Williams requested that his physician write a letter clearing him to return to work. He was cleared to work without restrictions or accommodations as of September 15, 2008. Ex. 69.

E. Issuance of a Letter of Warning

62. On September 23, 2008, Johnson conducted her fourth investigative interview of Williams, again revisiting his interaction with Banani. Dkt. # 72, p. 5. During the interview, Johnson questioned Williams’ loyalty and chastised him for spending time on the workroom floor with craft employees. Trial Tr. Vol. 2 106:2-107:6. She called Williams a “liar” and, as during the preceding three interviews, yelled at him and spoke in an antagonistic tone. Id. at 106:20-21.

63. Conducting more than two investigative interviews in relation to the same incident was unprecedented in the facilities where Williams worked. Trial Tr. Vol. 3, 70:7-21.

64. On October 3, 2008, Johnson issued Williams a Letter of Warning (“LOW”), which is a disciplinary action. Dkt. # 72, p. 5. The LOW was not written or approved by Labor Relations. The LOW informed Williams that, he was in violation of several Postal Service policies, including its policy regarding “Loyalty.” Ex. 71.

65. The presence of a LOW in an employee’s personnel file can be a factor in hiring decisions. Trial Tr. Vol. 5, 30:10-Í4.

66. Williams’ fiscal year 2008 performance review, completed by Johnson, ranked him for the first time as a “Non-Contributor” with respect to oral communication. Ex. 5.

67. Johnson awarded Williams a 5% Pay for Performance salary increase for the 2008 fiscal year. Dkt. # 72, p. 5.

F. Denial of Promotion to Manager of Safety

68. In March 2009, Williams accepted a detail assignment as an FMLA Coordinator, an EAS 18 position. Id. at p. 6. He did so in order to escape what he experienced as the unhealthy environment of the Safety. Department.

69. In August 2009, Williams requested an opportunity to serve as Acting Manager of Safety after Johnson left her position. His request was denied. Id.

70. On September 2, 2009, Johnson sent an email to Laveda Padilla, Safety Analyst in the Western Area Postal Service office in Denver, Colorado. She described Williams’ interest in the Acting Manager of Safety position as “[r]eally amusing considering our whole defense to his EEOs [sic] and 11c [sic] was that he was incompetent at his level 17 job and filed them to retaliate for being held accountable for performance.” Johnson instructed Padilla to delete the communication. Ex 76.

71. On October 14, 2009, Williams applied for the Manager of Safety EAS 20 position. The selection review committee was comprised of MDO Cook (the'committee chair), Kosmicki, and Renton Postmaster Evelyn Tan-Todd., The selecting official was Human Resources Manager Helen Pelton. Tan-Todd initially ranked Williams as one of the top three applicants but Cook and Kosmicki did not. Williams was not interviewed for the position.

72. Prior to making their selections, Kosmicki, Pelton, and Cook were aware of Williams’ OSHA complaint and assistance to Banani. Kosmicki was also aware that Williams had been placed on enforced leave.

73. On October 14, 2009, the same day that Williams submitted his application, Pelton sent an email inquiring into Williams’ EEOC complaints. Trial Tr. Vol. 5, 58:18-23.

. 74. During a conversation before Kos-micki conducted his review and evaluation of the candidates, Pelton (Kosmicki’s direct supervisor) explicitly informed him that she did not want Williams to receive the promotion or to see his application again for a manager of safety position. She informed Kosmicki that Williams might be the most qualified candidate but that regardless she did not want him to have the job on account of his EEOC and whistleblower complaints. Trial Tr. Vol. 3, 112:24-113:10.

75. Kosmicki responded to Pelton that her comments were improper and asked to be taken off the committee. Pelton responded by making a motion across her mouth akin to a zipper shutting. Pelton did not permit Kosmicki to step down from the committee. Id. at 113:11-114:8.

76. Although Kosmicki had previously enjoyed- a positive rapport with Pelton, Pelton began treating him in a less favorable way after their conversation. She publicly yelled at him and belittled him, became focused on criticizing him, and stopped consulting him on matters. Id. at 114:13-115:14.

77. Kosmicki subsequently filed two OSHA complaints, alleging retaliation in connection with his conversation with Pel-ton and in connection With his provision of information to OSHA investigator Rebecca Phillips during her investigation into Williams’ complaints. Id. at 119:24-121:6; Ex.’s 88,116.

78. Kosmicki made his Manager of Safety recommendations following his conversation with Pelton. He deemed Williams to be lacking minimum qualifications in two of eight categories: supervision of others and written communication. Ex. 84. Kosmicki testified that he may have been particularly harsh in his assessment of Williams and may have felt pressured by Pelton’s instructions. Trial Tr. Vol. 3,138:21-140:23.

79. Tan-Todd originally ranked Williams second among her top three candidates. Ex. 81. Following a conversation with Cook and email correspondence with Cook and Pelton, she changed Williams’ ranking to fourth. Ex. 85. It was atypical for a selection committee head to communicate with the committee members prior to the members putting forth their recommendations.

80. On or about December 3, 2009, Williams learned that he was not selected for the Manager of Safety position. On December 28, 2009, Williams filed another whistleblower complaint with OSHA alleging that his non-selection for the Safety Manager position was in retaliation for protected activity. Dkt. # 72, p. 6.

81. On January 13, 2010, OSHA notified the Postal Service of Williams’ complaint of retaliation related to his non-selection as Manager of Safety. Id.

82. In January of 2010, Williams’ detail as an FMLA Coordinator was converted to a full-time position. Id.

83. On or about March 13, 2010, Williams was promoted to FMLA Coordinator, an EAS 18 position. Helen Pelton approved the decision to promote Williams. Id. at p. 7.

84. Although Williams did not have any difficulties with his new supervisor, he would have preferred to work in the Safety Department. Trial Tr. Vol. 2, 175:7-176:16.

85. In April 2011, the Postal Service consolidated all FMLA Coordinator positions in Greensboro, NC, including Williams’ position. For family reasons, Williams opted to stay in Seattle and transfer to another position. Dkt. # 72, p. 7.

86. In January 2013, Williams obtained a detail and then permanent position as an EAS 18 Postmaster, stationed first in Blaine, WA and then in Point Roberts, WA near the Canadian border. Id. Williams resided in Point Roberts Monday through Friday in a mobile home in a recreational vehicle park. Purchase of the motor coach cost Williams $20,000, in addition to which he paid $350-450 per month in berthing fees for the year that he worked at Point Roberts. Trial Tr. Vol. 2, 117:21-119:10.

87. In January of 2014, Williams transferred to the Vehicle Maintenance Facility in South Seattle as an EAS 17 supervisor.

G. Williams’ Physical and Emotional Health

88. Since his protected activity in February 2008 and as a result of the actions taken by the Postal Service against him, Williams has suffered a loss of self-esteem, motivation, and enjoyment of relationships and activities in his life. See, e.g., Exs. 72, 92-108.

89. Williams’ physical symptoms, as attested to by his treating physicians, include sleeping and eating problems, headaches, and stomach pain. Id.

90. Williams experienced public humiliation by his direct supervisors at the Postal Service following his protected activity. Postal Service managers made Williams the target of ridicule on account of his assistance to OSHA and commitment to workplace safety.

91. As a result of the actions taken against him by the Postal Service since February 2008, Williams has suffered depression, undergone psychiatric treatment, and taken four medications to cope. Id.

92. Williams took leave from work as a result of actions taken against him by the Postal Service following his protected activity and obtained professional assistance to regain functional capacity.

93 Dr. Brian Grant, a board-certified forensic psychiatrist, conducted an in-person evaluation of Williams’ past and current mental health. Dr. Grant testified that Williams experienced mental health sequelae, primarily in the form of major depression and anxiety disorder with potential psychotic features following his February 2008 protected activity. Trial Tr. Vol. 4,12:8-18, 41:7-12.

94. Dr. Grant further opined that any paranoid tendencies or stressors experienced by Williams prior to February 20, 2008 were likely exacerbated by actions taken against him by Postal Service managers to the point that he sought treatment and began taking medication for the first time. Id. at 19:15-20:12, 42:21-44:4.

95. Dr. Grant’s testimony was unrebut-ted and the Court accords it substantial weight.

H. Postal Service Attitudes toward OSHA at Seattle P & DC and District Office.

96. Several Postal Service managers, including Charles Kosmicki and former Plant Safety Specialist at the Seattle P & DC, Calvin Crumrine, testified to the animus among Postal Service senior management at the Seattle P & DC and District Office toward OSHA and employee complaints thereto.

97. Crumrine testified that Postal Service senior management tends to view OSHA as the “enemy” and prefers to keep OSHA out of Postal Service operations. Crumrine Dep., 48:19-49:24.

98. Kosmicki experienced acts of retaliation following his filing of an OSHA complaint, including being placed on enforced leave. Trial Tr. Vol. 3,125:22-126:2. Kos-micki’s OSHA complaint alleged that he was denied sick leave and his pay and staff were reduced in retaliation for providing information to OSHA investigator Phelps about Williams’ treatment. Id. at 123:12— 124:22.

99. Kosmicki’s supervisor, Pelton’s successor Dan Foster, informed him that Postal Service managers are not supposed to file complaints. Id. at 127:21-128:3. Foster explicitly questioned Kosmicki’s loyalty to the Postal Service following his OSHA complaint. Id. at 128:12-17.

100. District Manager Katherine Nash instructed Kosmicki that “good soldiers don’t sue their company.” Id. at 128:4-8.

101. Senior Plant Manager Jacobus directly referred to Kosmicki, Williams, and another employee as a group of “malcontents.”' Id. at 127:11-20.

102. The Court finds the testimony of Crumrine and Kosmicki credible and accords their testimony significant weight.

103. Sue Fesler testified that as union steward at the P & DC, she frequently received grievances from employees who were disciplined for reporting accidents or unsafe conditions. Employees were consequently reluctant to file a complaint or accident report. Trial Tr. Vol. 1, 57:12-58:10.

104. The Court finds Fesler’s testimony credible and assigns its significant weight.

105. Postal Service management at the Seattle facilities has demonstrated a propensity to put productivity over safety. Fesler, for instance, testified that Postal Service management routinely scheduled one person on a machine designed to be operated by two, leading to injuries and filing of employee grievances. See id. at 58:11-59:3. Manager of Safety Kaseman overheard Jacobus call him a pejorative name in response to Kaseman’s attempts to enforce a safety rule at the Plant. Kaseman Dep., 154:22-157:9.

106.OSHA investigator Phelps experienced resistance by Postal Service managers in investigating Williams’ complaints. Phelps testified that several managers she interviewed were rude, disrespectful, and uncooperative. Trial Tr. Vol. 1, 74:8-75:12. Based on what it determined to be the unusually egregious nature of Williams’ treatment by the Postal Service, OSHA recommended punitive damages. Id. at 94:12-95:21.

IV. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

A. The Postal Service has Violated Section 11(c) of the Act with respect to Arthur Williams

Congress passed the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 “to assure as far as possible every working man and woman in the Nation safe and healthful working conditions ...” 29 U.S.C. § 651(b). The Act effectuates this goal by, among various mechanisms, “encouraging employers and employees in their efforts” to reduce workplace hazards and provide “safe and healthful working conditions” and by “providing for appropriate reporting procedures with respect to occupational safety and health.” Id. at § 651(b)(1), (10). The Act, as safety legislation, is remedial and preventative in nature and is to liberally construed to effectuate congressional purpose. Reich v. Hoy Shoe Co., Inc., 32 F.3d 361, 368 (8th Cir.1994) (citing Whirlpool Corp. v. Marshall, 445 U.S. 1, 13, 100 S.Ct. 883, 63 L.Ed.2d 154 (1980)).

Aware of the . inevitable shortage, of safety and health inspectors available to supervise the nation’s multitudinous workplaces, Congress “placed great reliance on employee assistance in enforcing the Act.” Marshall v. Whirlpool Corp., 593 F.2d 715, 722 (6th Cir.1979), aff'd 445 U.S. 1, 100 S.Ct. 883, 63 L.Ed.2d 154 (1980). To that end, Section 11(c) of the Act provides:

No person shall discharge or in any manner discriminate against any employee because such employee has filed any complaint or instituted or caused to be instituted any proceeding under or related to this chapter or has testified or is about to testify in any such proceeding or because of the exercise by such employee on behalf of himself or others of any right afforded by this chapter.

29 U.S.C. § 660(c)(1). Section 11(c) functions to safeguard employees against adverse actions taken on account of their engagement or suspected engagement in activity protected under the Act, thereby ensuring that health and safety violations will be reported. See Reich, 32 F.3d at 368. The Act, in turn, authorizes the Secretary of Labor to bring an action in federal district court upon the filing and investigation of a complaint by an employee who believes that he or she was discharged or discriminated against in violation of Section 11(c). 29 U.S.C. § 660(c)(2). Coverage under Section 11(c) is not disputed in this case: the Postal Service is a “person” subject to the Act and Williams is an employee entitled to the Act’s protections. 29 U.S.C. §§ 652(4)-(6).

Under Section 11(c) of the Act, “[a]n employer ‘discriminates’ against an employee only when he treats that employee less favorably than he treats others similarly situated.” Whirlpool Corp., 445 U.S. at 19, 100 S.Ct. 883. To prevail on a claim under Section 11(c), the Secretary must prove each of the following elements by a preponderance of the evidence: (1) the claimant employee participated in protected activity, (2) the employer subsequently subjected the employee to an adverse employment action, and (3) a causal connection exists between the protected activity and the adverse action. Reich, 32 F.3d at 365. Evidence establishing each element may be direct or circumstantial. Desert Palace, Inc. v. Costa, 539 U.S. 90, 99, 123 S.Ct. 2148, 156 L.Ed.2d 84 (2003); see Stegall v. Citadel Broadcasting Co., 350 F.3d 1061, 1066 (9th Cir.2003).

At the trial stage, the Secretary bears the ultimate burden of proof “to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the challenged employment decision was ‘because of discrimination.” Costa v. Desert Palace, Inc., 299 F.3d 838, 856-57 (9th Cir.2002) (en banc), aff'd 539 U.S. 90, 123 S.Ct. 2148, 156 L.Ed.2d 84 (2003). If the Secretary proves his case in chief, he prevails if the finder of fact determines that discriminatory animus is the sole cause for the challenged employment actions. Costa, 299 F.3d at 856. By contrast, the employer prevails if it establishes that discrimination played no role in the challenged decisions. Id.

The employer may also defend by showing that it possessed a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for taking the adverse actions against the complaining employee. Id. Where the employer has articulated mixed motives for taking the adverse actions, the employer may avoid liability only by proving that the employment decisions at issue would have been the same even if discrimination had played no role. Lam v. Univ. of Haw., 40 F.3d 1551, 1564-65 (9th Cir.1994); Costa, 299 F.3d at 856-57. The burden is on the employer to make this showing as an affirmative defense. Lam, 40 F.3d at 1564-65 (citing Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228, 246, 109 S.Ct. 1775, 104 L.Ed.2d 268 (1989)).

In this case, due to the Postal Service’s spoliation of evidence in conscious disregard of its preservation duties, the Court has drawn a rebuttable inference against the validity of the Postal Service’s performance-related justifications for adverse action taken with respect to Williams following his protected activities. Dkt. # 66, 71. That is, the Court draws an adverse inference against the Postal Service that its treatment of Williams was not motivated by alleged performance issues predating his protected activities. Id.

The Court finds that the Secretary has established by a preponderance of the evidence that the Postal Service retaliated against Arthur Williams in various ways because of Williams’ protected activities. The Court further finds that the Postal Service failed to carry its burden to prove that it would have taken any of the myriad adverse actions against Williams in the absence of his protected activities.

(1) Williams engaged in activities protected by the Act

Section 11(c) protects an employee from retaliation on the basis of filing a complaint, testifying with respect to a Section 11(c) proceeding, or exercising any right afforded by the Act on behalf of himself or others. 29 U.S.C. § 660(c)(1). The scope of rights protected implicitly and explicitly under the Act is broad. See, e.g., 29 C.F.R. § 1904.36 (prohibiting retaliation for reporting workplace injury).

It is undisputed that Williams engaged in the following protected activities within the meaning of the Act: (1) assisting Na-seem Banani on February 20, 2008; (2) accompanying OSHA inspectors on an inspection of the P & DC on March 19, 2008; (3) filing a whistleblower complaint with OSHA on April 18, 2008; (4) filing a whis-tleblower complaint with OSHA on July 11, 2008 alleging retaliatory interference with his medical leave; (5) filing a whistle-blower complaint with OSHA on December 28, 2008 alleging that his non-selection for the Safety Manager position was retaliation for protected activity; and (6) filing a whistleblower complaint on March 16, 2011 alleging that Human Resource Manager Pelton harassed him in retaliation for protected activity.

(2) Adverse Actions were taken against Williams

In order to meet its burden to show an adverse employment action, the DOL “must show that a reasonable employee would have found the challenged action materially adverse,” which means that the action “might have dissuaded a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination.” Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53, 68, 126 S.Ct. 2405, 165 L.Ed.2d 345 (2006) (internal quotation omitted). Materiality of the alleged harms is judged by an objective standard accounting for the particular circumstances under which they occurred. Id. To be materially adverse, an action need not rise to the level of an ultimate employment action, such as discharge, change in job title, or reduction in pay. See Ray v. Henderson, 217 F.3d 1234, 1242-43 (9th Cir.2000); Burlington Northern, 548 U.S. at 64, 126 S.Ct. 2405 (providing that materially adverse actions are not “limited to discriminatory actions that affect the terms and conditions of employment”). Rather, actions such as a lateral transfer, an unfavorable job reference, or a change in work schedule may be sufficiently severe under the circumstances to deter a reasonable employee from complaining about discrimination. Id.; Ray, 217 F.3d at 1242-43.

The Court finds that the Postal Service subjected Williams to several discrete adverse actions, as well as an actionable hostile work environment.

(a) Transfer and Demotion as Plant Safety Specialist at the P & DC

- The Court finds that Williams’ lateral transfer from the P & DC to the Queen Anne District Office on or about February 26, 2008 rose to the level of an adverse employment action. This transfer, which followed within a week of Williams’ assistance to Banani,- stripped Williams.of the bulk of his professional responsibilities, replaced them with the menial tasks of checking emails and cleaning his office, and relocated Williams to an insufficiently equipped administrative desk and subsequently an under-heated storage closet. Although Williams’ job title did not change, his transfer constituted a de facto demotion. See Kessler v. Westchester Cnty. Dept. of Social Services, 461 F.3d 199, 209-210 (2d Cir.2006). The Court finds that the circumstances of this action, including its abrupt, public, and humiliating nature, would deter a reasonable employee from exercising his rights under the Act. Id.; Burlington Northern, 548 U.S. at 67-68, 126 S.Ct. 2405.

(b) Multiple Investigative Interviews

The Court finds that the four investigative interviews of Williams by Johnson rose to the level of an adverse action. Ordinarily, participation in investigative interviews, standing alone, does not constitute punishment or harm sufficient to deter a reasonable employee from engaging in protective activity. See Ballard v. Donahoe, 2014 WL 1286193, *12 (E.D.Cal. 2014); Lee v. Hawaii, 2010 WL 235009, at *7 (D.Haw.2010). Investigative interviews may, however, rise to an actionable level where they lead to an adverse consequence or where the attending circumstances show that a reasonable person subjected to them would be dissuaded from complaining about discrimination. See Ballard, 2014 WL 1286193 at *12 (recognizing that “an investigative interview can be deemed adverse if it leads to an adverse consequence”). Such is the case here.

It is undisputed that Johnson conducted four discrete investigative interviews of Williams on March 5, 2008, March 28, 2008, April 11, 2008, and September 23, 2008. Excluding the period of his medical leave, Williams was interviewed about his assistance to Banani four times in the course of seven weeks of work. In contravention of Postal Service practice, none of the interviews was preceded by an explication of its purpose and each was carried out in an offensive and antagonistic manner. The number of interviews, all focused on a single incident, was unprecedented in the facilities where Williams worked. Johnson’s tone toward Williams was hostile, accusatory, and humiliating. She consistently yelled at and berated him during the interviews for his protected activity and questioned his loyalty to the Postal Service. The treatment was sufficiently severe that Williams was compelled to seek medical leave on the same day that his third investigative interview took place. Further, Johnson failed to inform Williams that the interviews could lead to disciplinary actions. Johnson nonetheless issued Williams a Letter of Warning ten days after his fourth interview, and shortly after his return from enforced leave, which negr atively impacted his personnel record.

Under these circumstances, the Court finds that the four investigative interviews were of a sufficiently hostile and punitive nature, leading to adverse employment and health consequences for Williams, such that they would dissuade a reasonable person in his position from lodging a complaint of discrimination.

.(c) October 3, 2008 Letter of Warning and Negative Performance Evaluations

The Court finds that the October 3, 2008 LOW issued to Williams as well as his negative fiscal year 2008 performance review constitute adverse actions. The Postal Service considers the issuance of a LOW to be a disciplinary action. The LOW was neither written nor approved by Labor Relations in contravention of Postal Service policy requiring that Labor Relations be' involved in discipline administered to EAS employees. It further contained unwarranted accusations, such as its assertion that Williams was in violation of the Postal Service’s loyalty policy. See Ex. 71. The LOW remains in Williams’ work file, negatively affecting his personnel record.

Johnson’s ranking of Williams in his 2008 fiscal year performance review as a “Non-Contributor” in oral communications was similarly undeserved. Johnson had ranked Williams as a “High-Contributor” in this category in November 2007, and Williams had never received less than a satisfactory ranking on any performance category. The Court finds that the issuance of an unwarranted, negative performance review would be reasonably likely to deter an employee in Williams’ position from engaging in protected activity. See Boswell v. Potter, 51 Fed.Appx. 661, 663 (9th Cir.2002) (unpublished decision) (Postal Service “[Betters of warning placed in the employee’s personnel file are likely to deter employees from engaging in protected activity”) (citing Yartzoff v. Thomas, 809 F.2d 1371, 1376 (9th Cir.1987)); Yartzoff, 809 F.2d at 1376 (“[U]ndeserved performance ratings, if proven, would constitute ‘adverse employment decisions!)]’ ”)

(d) Failure to Promote Williams to Manager of Safety Position

The Court finds that the Postal Service’s refusal to consider Williams for the Manager of Safety position constitutes an adverse action. Where an employee alleges retaliatory refusal to hire or promote, the plaintiff must show that the “position for which she applies was eliminated or not available to her because of her protected activities. Her ‘adverse employment decision’ is the closing of the job opening to her and the loss of opportunity even to compete for the position.” Ruggles v. California Polytechnic State Univ., 797 F.2d 782, 786 (9th Cir.1986). In this instance, a preponderance of the evidence shows that Williams was denied the possibility to compete for the Manager of Safety position. His submission of an application was openly mocked by his supervisors. The selecting official, Pelton, directly informed committee member Kosmicki that Williams was not to be considered for the promotion regardless of his qualifications. Committee member Tan-Todd’s deletion of Williams’ name from her list of recommended candidates following her conversations with Pelton provides further circumstantial evidence of management’s intent to keep Williams out of the candidate pool. The denial of the opportunity to fairly compete for the position, rendering the promotion unattainable, would dissuade a reasonable employee from exercising his or rights under the Act.

(e) Williams’ Subjection to a Hostile Work Environment

Both parties agree that the creation of a hostile work environment is cognizable as a material adverse action for the purposes of a Section 11(c) claim. See Dkt. ## 68, 70. The Court is in accord.

It is well-settled that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is violated “[w]hen the workplace is permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult, ... that is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim’s employment and create an abusive work environment.” Harris v. Forklift Systems, 510 U.S. 17, 114 S.Ct. 367, 126 L.Ed.2d 295 (1993). The Ninth Circuit has held that a hostile work environment claim is cognizable under Title VII’s anti-relation provision. Ray, 217 F.3d at 1244-45; see also Komis v. U.S. Dep’t of Labor, 2014 WL 3437658 (E.D.Pa.2014) (recognizing a retaliatory hostile work environment claim under Title VII and explaining case law).

In light of the substantial similarities between the statutes, courts routinely import principles developed in the Title VII context into Section 11(c) analyses. See, e.g., Schweiss v. Chrysler Motors Corp., 987 F.2d 548, 549 (8th Cir.1993) (adopting principles applied to retaliation cases in other federal employment discrimination statutes to analyze a retaliation claim under the Act); Donovan v. Hahner, Foreman & Harness, 736 F.2d 1421, 1423 (10th Cir.1984) (applying Title VII equitable tolling law to Section 11(c)); Perez v. Renaissance Arts & Educ., Inc., 2013 WL 5487097, *5 (M.D.Fla.2013) (applying Title VII laches precedent to Section 11(c) claim because of the “close resemblance of Title VII cases to OSHA proceedings”).

The Court finds it appropriate to analogize from the Title VII context for the purpose of recognizing a retaliation claim based on a hostile work environment theory brought under Section 11(c). Doing so is consistent with the broad construction given Section 11(c) by the courts in order to protect employees in asserting their rights and to advance the salutary objectives of the Act. Marshall, 593 F.2d at 722.

To succeed on a hostile work environment theory of liability, a plaintiff must show that the employer’s actions were “sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim’s employment and create an abusive working environment.” McGinest v. GTE Serv. Corp., 360 F.3d 1103, 1112-13 (9th Cir.2004) (citation omitted). “It is enough if such hostile conduct pollutes the victim’s workplace, making it more difficult for [him] to do [his] job, to take pride in [his] work, and to desire to stay on in [his] position.” Id. Discrete acts that are independently actionable as adverse employment actions can simultaneously constitute a hostile work environment so long as they are adequately connected to each other as part of the same unlawful employment practice and together meet the hostile work environment standard. Baird v. Gotbaum, 662 F.3d 1246, 1252-53 (D.C.Cir.2011). The work environment must be both subjectively and objectively hostile, viewed from the perspective of a reasonable person in the victim’s position. McGinest, at 1113. To satisfy the material adversity element of his retaliation claim, a plaintiff must show that the hostile work environment was sufficiently severe to dissuade a reasonable person from making a complaint. See, Bergbauer v. Mabus, 934 F.Supp.2d 55, 81-82 & n. 25 (D.D.C.2013); Komis, 2014 WL 3437658 at *3.

In this case, the Court finds that Williams has suffered severe and pervasive harassment sufficient to alter the conditions of his employment and create an abusive working environment. Beginning with his initial protected activity on February 20, 2006, the Postal Service initiated a consistent string of harassing conduct aimed at Williams. Discrete instantiations of such harassment include: Williams’ precipitous transfer to the District Office; his relocation to an under-equipped administrative desk in an open area and subsequently to an under-heated Labor Relations storage closet; the near complete curtailment of his job duties; extraordinary prohibitions placed on his ability to accompany OSHA inspections, to communicate with craft employees, to move freely around the workplace, and to investigate safety incidents as is part and parcel of his position; his subjection to four hostile investigative interviews; frequent communications, both written and oral, from his supervisors questioning Williams’ loyalty to the Postal Service; subjection of Williams’ to public humiliation; antagonistic treatment during Williams’ FMLA leave; placement of Williams on enforced leave without pay, a disciplinary measure; issuance of a LOW placing Williams in violation of the Postal Service “Loyalty” policy; undeserved mid-year and.2008 fiscal year performance reviews; and the denial of the opportunity to compete for promotion to a Manager of Safety position.

The Court finds these actions objectively hostile in their severity and pervasiveness. The Court further finds that Williams subjectively viewed, and experienced these actions as offensive and harassing, personally and professionally, as evidenced by his taking of medical leave, his need for psychological therapy and medications, and his filing of multiple OSHA complaints. The Court has little trouble finding that a reasonable person in Williams’ position would be deterred from asserting his rights under the Act by conduct as pervasive and humiliating as that which he experienced and the polluted workplace atmosphere to which he was, for years, subjected. Accordingly, the Court determines that Williams was subjected to a hostile work environment con-, stituting an adverse employment action within the meaning of the Act.

(3) The adverse actions taken against Williams were caused by his protected activities

The Secretary has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that Williams’ protected activities were a “substantial reason” for the aforementioned adverse actions. 29 C.F.R. § 1977.6(b); see Solis v. Consol. Gun Ranges, 2011 WL 1215028 (W.D.Wash.2011).

Plaintiff may show causation through both direct and circumstantial evidence. Direct evidence is that which “if believed, proves the fact of'discriminatory animus without inference or presumption.” Godwin v. Hunt Wesson, Inc., 150 F.3d 1217, 1221 (9th Cir.1998) (internal quotation and alteration omitted). Direct evidence includes statements demonstrating hostility toward a protected status. Aragon v. Republic Silver State Disposal, Inc., 292 F.3d 654, 662 (9th Cir.2002) (collecting cases). Circumstantial evidence may also be used to show causation, provided that the evidence “give[s] rise to an inference.of unlawful discrimination.” Texas Dep’t of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 253, 101 S.Ct. 1089, 67 L.Ed.2d 207 (1981). Temporal proximity between protected activity and subsequent adverse actions can constitute sufficient circumstantial evidence. See Dawson v. Entek Intern., 630 F.3d 928, 937 (9th Cir.2011).

In this case, there is both direct and circumstantial evidence sufficient to support a casual connection between Williams’ protected activities and the subsequent adverse actions taken against him.

(a) Direct Evidence

The Court finds credible Charles Kos-micki’s testimony that his supervisor, Helen Pelton, expressly stated that she did not want Williams to receive the Manager of Safety promotion, regardless of Williams’ qualifications, on account of his OSHA. and EEOC complaints. Kosmicki’s testimony is consistent with two prior, signed statements regarding this conversation, both attributing Pelton’s animus toward Williams’ application to his protected activity. See Exs. 88, 116. The Court finds Pelton’s denial of the substance of this conversation to be lacking credibility. Based on the direct evidence of animus on the part of the Selecting Official with ultimate authority over the promotion in question, the Court finds that the Postal Service eliminated the position as to Williams because of his protected activities. Ruggles, 797 F.2d at 786; Dominguez-Curry v. Nevada Transp. Dept., 424 F.3d 1027, 1039-40 (9th Cir.2005) (‘Where ... the person who exhibited discriminatory animus influenced or participated in the decisionmaking process, a reasonable fact-finder could conclude that the animus affected the employment decision.”).

The Court finds other direct evidence of discriminatory animus toward Williams on account of his protected activities, including the following statements from Williams’ managers: (1) Jacobus’ February 26, 2008 email to Williams chastising his “continuing and obvious interest in representing the bargaining unit;” (2) Cook’s March 3, 2008 email to Guffey describing Williams as having “put this company at risk” by “informing] the employee of her rights” rather than instructing Banani to speak with management impervious to her health concerns; (3) Johnson’s March 12, 2008 email to Postal Service’s Western Area Safety Manager, stating that Williams had done “[everything but dialing [OSHA] for [Banani];” (4) Johnson’s testimony and written statement of May 9, 2008, stating that the purpose of a Safety Specialist is to prevent OSHA complaints; and (5) Johnson’s September 2, 2009 email to the Western Area Safety Analyst describing Williams’ interest in the Acting Manager of Safety position as “[r]eally amusing” in reference to his OSHA complaints. The Court also heard credible testimony at trial that Postal Service senior managers in the Seattle P & DC and District Office regard employee complaints to OSHA with hostility. These statements, startling in their magnitude and blatancy, demonstrate animus toward Williams’ attempts to promote safety in the workplace and exercise rights assured by the Act on behalf of himself and others. See Aragon, 292 F.3d at 662 (noting that “[p]articularly because employers know better, direct evidence of employment discrimination is rare”).

(b) Circumstantial Evidence

Extensive circumstantial evidence in this case also supports the Court’s finding of a causal relationship. The temporal proximity between Williams’ protected activities and these adverse actions creates a strong inference of causation. See Villiarimo v. Aloha Island Air, Inc., 281 F.3d 1054, 1065 (9th Cir.2002) (“[C]ausation can be inferred from timing alone where an adverse employment action follows on the heels of protected activity.”). This temporal proximity can itself constitute sufficient circumstantial evidence of retaliation. Bell v. Clackamas Cnty., 341 F.3d 858, 865 (9th Cir.2003).

Here, the Postal Service began taking adverse actions against Williams within one week of his assistance to Banani. On February 26, 2008, six days after Williams assisted Banani and one day after Banani filed her OSHA complaint, the Postal Service relocated Williams to the District Office, stripping Williams of his duties and transferring them to a lower level employee. On March 5, 2008, two weeks after Williams met with Banani, the Postal Service subjected Williams to his first hostile investigative interview. On March 14, 2008, the Postal Service restricted his duties to cleaning his P, & DC office and imposed extraordinary limi