Elaine Jones v. United States Postal Service
Background
- Appellant, a preference‑eligible Mail Handler, injured on March 7, 2013, filed an OWCP claim that was denied; she continued working in a limited‑duty assignment.
- In late 2014 appellant submitted updated medical restrictions and requested light duty; on December 5, 2014 a manager told her to go home pending a decision.
- The agency mailed a denial of light duty (which appellant did not receive due to an incorrect address); a subsequent denial letter was received January 9, 2015.
- Appellant remained off work in enforced leave status until the agency eventually approved a 3‑hour/day light‑duty assignment on May 20, 2015; she returned to work July 22, 2015.
- Appellant appealed to the MSPB alleging constructive suspension, due‑process violations, and discrimination (age and disability); the AJ dismissed for lack of jurisdiction treating the action as a constructive suspension.
- On review the Board found the AJ erred: the facts demonstrate enforced leave (an appealable suspension for >14 days), reversed the enforced‑leave action, and remanded for findings on when the suspension ended and hearings on discrimination defenses.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appellant was constructively suspended or placed on enforced leave >14 days | Appellant argued removal of limited duty and being told to go home amounted to constructive suspension and violated due process and anti‑discrimination law | Agency treated absence as voluntary or medically necessitated and denied light duty for lack of work within restrictions | Held: Agency placed appellant on enforced leave (appealable suspension). AJ erred by analyzing as constructive suspension; Board reversed enforced‑leave action |
| Whether Board has jurisdiction over the suspension claim | Appellant argued Board has jurisdiction because enforced leave >14 days is an appealable suspension | Agency argued lack of jurisdiction; AJ concluded insufficient proof of constructive suspension | Held: Board has jurisdiction over an enforced leave/suspension of >14 days; appealable under chapter 75 |
| Whether agency provided required due process before enforced leave | Appellant: no notice or opportunity to respond to the enforced leave, violating Loudermill due process rights | Agency did not provide pre‑suspension notice/opportunity; argued actions were proper | Held: Agency failed to provide prior notice/opportunity to respond; enforced leave cannot be sustained on that basis |
| Whether appellant’s discrimination defenses require further development | Appellant alleges age and disability discrimination in connection with the suspension | Agency disputes or did not concede discrimination claims | Held: Remanded for hearing on discrimination affirmative defenses; claims are cognizable in connection with an appealable action |
Key Cases Cited
- Maddox v. Merit Systems Protection Board, 759 F.2d 9 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Board jurisdiction is limited to matters conferred by law)
- Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (1985) (tenured public employees are entitled to prior notice and opportunity to respond before deprivation of property interest in employment)
- Bean v. U.S. Postal Service, 120 M.S.P.R. 397 (2013) (constructive suspension requires lack of meaningful choice caused by agency wrongful actions)
- Abbott v. U.S. Postal Service, 121 M.S.P.R. 294 (2014) (placement on enforced leave for >14 days is an appealable suspension)
- Martin v. U.S. Postal Service, 123 M.S.P.R. 189 (2016) (agency may not place tenured employee on enforced leave >14 days without required due process)