Mary A. Abbott v. United States Postal Service
Background
- Appellant (EAS-17 Supervisor) submitted a light-duty request and medical certification (Dec. 30, 2011) limiting walking, standing, sitting, climbing to 2 hours each and forbidding overtime; agency denied light duty for lack of work within restrictions.
- Agency proposed and then imposed enforced leave (Jan–Feb 2012); appellant appealed claiming the enforced leave was a constructive suspension and discrimination for failure to accommodate.
- Board initially dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; on review the Board held enforced leave over 14 days is an appealable suspension and remanded for merits.
- On remand the administrative judge sustained the suspension (agency proved inability to perform essential functions) and rejected appellant’s disability discrimination claim; appellant petitioned for review.
- On final review the Board found agency testimony relied on a supposed 6‑hour workday limitation but overlooked medical evidence (including a clarifying Jan. 23, 2012 physician letter) indicating the appellant could perform essential tasks over an 8‑hour day with accommodations; agency failed to prove inability to work 8 hours.
- Board reversed the suspension (ordered cancellation and back pay) but affirmed the denial of disability discrimination because the parties engaged in the interactive process and agency ceased consideration once appellant elected disability retirement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether enforced leave >14 days is an appealable suspension | Abbott argued the enforced leave was a constructive/indefinite suspension | USPS treated it as enforced leave due to medical inability to perform duties | Board previously held such enforced leave is an appealable suspension and on final review reversed agency’s suspension for failing to prove the charge |
| Whether agency proved appellant medically unable to perform essential functions | Abbott argued her doctor’s later submissions showed she could perform duties with accommodations (and could work 8 hours) | USPS argued the medical restrictions (2 hours each walking/standing/sitting) precluded an 8‑hour workday and thus supported suspension | Held for appellant: agency failed to prove by preponderant evidence she could not work an 8‑hour day; suspension reversed |
| Whether USPS denied reasonable accommodation/discriminated under Rehabilitation Act | Abbott argued USPS failed to provide reasonable accommodation and did not adequately engage in the interactive process | USPS argued it engaged with appellant/DRAC and process ended when appellant sought disability retirement | Held for USPS on discrimination claim: Board affirmed that interactive process occurred and no failure to accommodate entitlement was shown |
| Relief and remedies | Abbott sought reinstatement/relief and remedies for procedural or due process errors | USPS argued its actions were justified and claimant received retirement, etc. | Board ordered cancellation of suspension, back pay/interest, and gave procedural directions; did not award discrimination relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Pope v. U.S. Postal Service, 114 F.3d 1144 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (elements employer must prove to sustain a suspension)
- Savage v. Dep't of the Army, 122 M.S.P.R. 612 (MSPB 2015) (agency must prove medical inability to perform duties by preponderant evidence)
- Abbott v. U.S. Postal Service, 121 M.S.P.R. 294 (MSPB 2014) (enforced leave over 14 days constitutes an appealable suspension)
- Haebe v. Dep't of Justice, 288 F.3d 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (deference to credibility findings based on witness demeanor)
- Kerr v. Nat'l Endowment for the Arts, 726 F.2d 730 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (agency must cancel an unlawful suspension and provide back pay)