Mary A. Abbott v. United States Postal Service
Background
- Appellant Mary Abbott, an EAS-17 Supervisor at a USPS station, sought light-duty return after medical leave with restrictions in a December 30, 2011 medical certification.
- The agency denied light duty, proposed enforced leave on Jan. 6, 2012, and placed Abbott on enforced leave by final decision on Feb. 8, 2012; she later applied for and received disability retirement effective June 4, 2012.
- Abbott appealed, alleging the enforced leave was a constructive (indefinite) suspension; the Board previously found placing an employee on enforced leave >14 days is an appealable suspension and remanded for merits.
- On remand the administrative judge sustained the suspension, finding Abbott could not perform essential functions due to 2-hour-per-activity limits (walking, standing, sitting), and rejected disability-discrimination and related defenses.
- On petition for review the Board concluded agency witnesses relied on a perceived 6-hour workday limit but ignored medical statements (including a Jan. 23, 2012 clarification) indicating Abbott could perform an 8-hour day with accommodations; Board found the agency failed to prove inability to work 8 hours and reversed the suspension.
- The Board affirmed the denial of Abbott’s disability-discrimination claim, finding the parties engaged in the interactive process and that the claim failed on the merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether enforced leave >14 days is an appealable suspension | Abbott: It was a constructive/invalid suspension | USPS: Enforced leave was proper because medical restrictions prevented full duty | Board: Enforced leave is appealable; agency failed to prove inability to work 8 hours, so suspension reversed |
| Whether agency proved inability to perform essential functions due to medical restrictions | Abbott: Medical docs allowed 8-hr workday with accommodations | USPS: Dec. 30 form limited walking/standing/sitting to 2 hrs each -> effectively 6-hr day, so cannot perform 8-hr duties | Board: Agency relied on a presumed 6-hr limitation but ignored clarifying medical letter and other limits; agency did not meet burden to prove inability to work 8 hrs |
| Whether the agency denied reasonable accommodation / violated Rehabilitation Act | Abbott: Agency failed to provide accommodation and did not complete interactive process | USPS: Engaged in interactive process and accommodation was explored until disability retirement made accommodation unnecessary | Board: Parties engaged in the interactive process; Abbott failed to prove discrimination or failure to accommodate |
| Relief and remedies | Abbott: Seek reinstatement/back pay or relief for improper suspension | USPS: Agency must cancel only if Board reversible | Board: Ordered agency to cancel the suspension, pay backpay, interest, benefits; reversed suspension but affirmed discrimination ruling |
Key Cases Cited
- Pope v. U.S. Postal Serv., 114 F.3d 1144 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (standards for sustaining suspension)
- Kerr v. Nat'l Endowment for the Arts, 726 F.2d 730 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (agency ordered to cancel improper suspension)
- Haebe v. Dep't of Justice, 288 F.3d 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (deference to credibility findings based on witness demeanor)
- Savage v. Dep't of the Army, 122 M.S.P.R. 612 (MSPB 2015) (agency burden to prove medical inability to perform duties)