McDermott v. United States Postal Service
694 F. App'x 802
| Fed. Cir. | 2017Background
- Lance McDermott, a USPS maintenance mechanic, disclosed colorblindness after USPS adopted a color-coded maintenance system; his job requires distinguishing colors and involves safety-sensitive tasks.
- USPS offered McDermott the opportunity to seek reasonable accommodation or permanent light duty through DRAC; McDermott refused to engage, citing distrust of light-duty practices.
- After multiple notices and opportunities to participate, USPS placed McDermott on enforced leave due to safety concerns and his refusal to cooperate with accommodation processes.
- During earlier proceedings, USPS records showed McDermott’s veteran preference status had been removed in error; USPS corrected the record and reviewed other files for similar errors.
- McDermott filed multiple administrative and district-court challenges; this appeal concerns his USERRA claim alleging discrimination based on military service related to the preference-status error and the enforced-leave placement.
- The MSPB Administrative Judge and the Board found (1) the preference-status removal was an inadvertent clerical error and (2) enforced leave resulted from McDermott’s failure to cooperate, not anti-military discrimination; the Federal Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether removal of veteran preference status was motivated by military service | McDermott: USPS intentionally removed preference to penalize military service | USPS: Error was inadvertent clerical mistake; no evidence of discriminatory intent | Held: Board decision affirmed; record shows clerical error, not motivated by military service |
| Whether placement on enforced leave violated USERRA (motivating-factor test) | McDermott: Enforced leave was motivated by his veteran status | USPS: Leave followed McDermott’s refusal to engage in accommodation/light-duty process addressing safety risks | Held: Affirmed; substantial evidence shows enforced leave due to noncooperation and safety concerns, not military service |
| Whether USPS’s knowledge of McDermott’s service permits inference of discrimination | McDermott: Knowledge of service supports discriminatory inference | USPS: Mere knowledge without other evidence does not show motivation | Held: Knowledge alone insufficient; AJ properly weighed Sheehan factors and found no inference of discrimination |
| Ineffective-assistance / misconduct claim against USPS counsel | McDermott: USPS counsel acted dishonestly and failed to investigate | USPS: Counsel did not represent McDermott before the Board; no supporting evidence of misconduct | Held: Claim unsupported and rejected |
Key Cases Cited
- Sheehan v. Dep’t of Navy, 240 F.3d 1009 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explains USERRA plaintiff’s burden and factors for inferring discriminatory motivation)
- Jacobsen v. Dep’t of Justice, 500 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (defines substantial-evidence standard of review)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. United States, 750 F.2d 927 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (quotation on substantial evidence standard)