Elaine Jones v. United States Postal Service
Background
- Appellant: preference-eligible Mail Handler at USPS Memphis; filed OWCP claim for March 7, 2013 injury; OWCP denied claim and reconsideration in 2013 but appellant continued limited-duty work.
- Appellant submitted updated medical restrictions in late 2014 seeking temporary light duty; on December 5, 2014 a USPS manager told her to go home pending the light-duty decision.
- USPS denied the December 2014 light-duty request (letter mailed to wrong address); appellant was off work more than 14 days and filed a Board appeal alleging constructive suspension, due process violations, and discrimination (age and disability).
- USPS moved to dismiss for lack of Board jurisdiction. The administrative judge treated the matter as a constructive suspension and dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
- On review the Board found the agency’s December 5, 2014 action was enforced leave (an appealable suspension), reversed that action for lack of due process, and remanded for factfinding on the suspension end date and a hearing on discrimination claims; Board declined jurisdiction over plaintiff’s claim seeking an 8-hour light-duty assignment starting July 2015.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | Agency's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Board has jurisdiction over the absence as an appealable enforced leave (suspension) or only a constructive suspension | The absence was enforced leave >14 days, so an appealable suspension | The absence was voluntary/constructive; no appealable suspension | Board: enforced leave; agency placed her on leave >14 days against her will, so appealable suspension within Board jurisdiction |
| Whether agency violated appellant’s due process rights by placing her on enforced leave | Agency failed to give prior notice and opportunity to respond | Agency acted properly in denying light duty and sending letters; appellant lacked choice | Held: agency did not provide required Loudermill notice/hearing; enforced leave cannot be sustained for lack of due process |
| Whether discrimination (age/disability) defenses require further proceedings | Appellant alleges cognizable discrimination tied to the appealable action | Agency disputes discrimination claims or says claims insufficient | Remanded for a hearing on age/disability discrimination claims to develop the record |
| When the suspension ended (effect of delay between light-duty approval and return to work) | Appellant implies the suspension ended when light duty was approved/when she returned | Agency points to possible employee-caused delay between approval and return | Remanded to determine the suspension end date; Board could not resolve from record |
Key Cases Cited
- Maddox v. Merit Systems Protection Board, 759 F.2d 9 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (describing MSPB jurisdictional limits and burden on appellant to prove jurisdiction)
- Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (constitutional minimum due process requires notice and opportunity to respond before deprivation of property interest in public employment)