Although this case was decided in 2013  it may still be interesting to PostalReporter.com readers.

The Merit system Protection Board’s (MSPB) reaffirmed the decision of the United States Postal Service (USPS) removing Ms. Williams from her position as Manager of Distribution Operations at the North Metro Processing Center and Distribution Center in Atlanta, Georgia (North Metro) and placing her in a Customer Services Analyst position. Below is a sanitized version of the decision from the United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit:Ms. Williams began her career with the USPS in 1981 and by 1993, she was a Manager of Distribution Operations (MDO), EAS-24. Ms. Williams became the Lead MDO for “Tour 3,” the 3 p.m. to 11:30 p.m. shift at North Metro in 1997.

In 2008, Ms. Williams’ supervisor, a Senior Manager of Distribution Operations (SMDO) , EAS-25, started challenging her performance as Lead MDO by issuing  a series of escalating warnings, disciplinary actions and placement on a performance improvement plan (PIP). Ms. Williams then was moved to Lead MDO for “Tour 1,” the 11 p.m. to 7 a.m. shift.

Here is the problem that initiated the court case:On November 6, 2009,  at the end of Tour 1, over 182,000 pieces of mail had not been processed, counted or placed on the  Daily Mail Condition Report (DMCR). Relying on the flawed DMCR, Ms. Williams failed to report the correct amount of delayed mail at the daily 8 a.m. teleconference after Tour 1 ended. While it was not Ms. Williams direct responsibility to count the delayed mail or to prepare the DMCR, the  administrative judge found that, as Lead MDO for Tour 1, “agency procedures clearly designated [Ms. Williams] as the individual responsible for ensuring the accuracy of the DMCR.”

Ten days after this incident, Ms. Williams’ supervisor asked the USPS Office of Human Resources to draft a proposal for her removal.  The final Notice of Proposed Removal, dated January 30, 2010, featured two charges: (1) Unacceptable Work Performance: Failing to Record Delayed Volume Accurately, and (2) Failure to Discharge Assigned Duties in a Satisfactory Manner. Both charges relied on a single narrative, describing Ms.  Williams failure to accurately report 182,000 pieces of delayed mail on November 6, 2009. The Notice also stated that Ms.  Williams past record influenced the proposed removal decision, citing the three previous Letters of Warning.

The deciding USPS official found the evidence fully supported the charges. He found Ms. Williams actions were a “serious dereliction of [her] managerial responsibilities” and noted her’ performance had not improved despite several corrective measures. The deciding USPS official determined Ms. Williams was not capable of continuing her managerial role, but mitigated the penalty from removal to a reduction in grade to Customer Services Analyst, EAS-17.  After Ms. Williams appealed, the USPS withdrew the first charge and proceeded only on the charge of Failure to Assigned Discharge Duties in a Satisfactory Manner.

Ms. Williams argued MSPB erred: “(1) in finding that she was responsible for ensuring the accuracy of the DMCR; (2) in affirming the agency action despite the withdrawal of the charge of Unacceptable Work Performance; (3) in finding she was not disparately penalized; (4) in affirming the administrative judge’s exclusion of an audit of North Metro’s operation; and (5) in finding the personnel action was not taken in retaliation for protected disclosures Ms. Williams made to Members of Congress.”

But the court concluded that substantial evidence supported MSPB’s decision. The record showed that the charged conduct occurred: 182,000 pieces of delayed mail were not reported on the DMCR for November 6, 2009, and Ms.Williams’ testified that the she relied on an inaccurate number during the morning teleconference. Ms. Williams argued that MSPB erred in finding she was responsible for the DMCR’s accuracy. While Ms. Williams agreed that USPS Standard Operating Procedures indicate that “the MDO” has responsibility for the accuracy of the DMCR, she suggested that her subordinate or her supervisor should have been held responsible. The administrative judge was not swayed by this argument. The administrative judge found a “clear and direct relationship between [Ms. Williams’] misconduct of failing to discharge her duties in a satisfactory manner and the agency’s mission. Substantial evidence supports the finding that the USPS established a nexus between the charged conduct and the efficiency of the service.”

According to the Federal court: “The record also contained substantial evidence to support MSPB’s determination that the penalty imposed was reasonable. MSPB had correctly determined that USPS’ decision to drop the charge of “Unacceptable Work Performance: Failing to Record Delayed Volume Accurately” did not undermine the basis for the penalty imposed. ” The dropped charge was simply a more specific version of the charge on which the USPS proceeded, as both charges relied on the same specification and narrative. The administrative judge noted the deciding USPS official “stated that the dropping of Charge 1 had no effect on his conclusion that demotion was the appropriate penalty.” Accordingly, the decision to proceed only on Charge 2 did not affect the merits of the case.”

Ms. Williams claimed the USPS rushed to remove her from the MDO position in retaliation for signing a December 8, 2009 letter to Members of Congress. The letter alleged that USPS “was refusing employee requests to substitute paid for unpaid leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA).”  But the administrative judge credited the SMDO’s testimony that she decided on November 16, 2009 to propose Ms. Williams’ removal. The administrative judge found Ms. Williams “did not sign the petition until December 20, 2009.” Further, the court pointed out the SMDO regularly expressed concern with Ms. Williams’ job performance and worked with her “for well over one year to improve her performance deficiencies” before proposing the removal. The court concluded:…”even if the petition constituted a protected disclosure, it could not have been a contributing factor.  Having thoroughly reviewed the record, this court finds substantial evidence to support the administrative judge.” So, the Federal Court rejected Ms. Williams’ argument that MSPB erred in finding she did not prove her affirmative defense of whistleblower retaliation and affirmed the decision for demotion.

PostalReporter.com note:  I had shared this case with a few people prior to posting.  They posed several questions which  the case file did not answer.

1. In the hearing or in the case file did the Senior Manager provide any documents supporting her testimony of requesting removal for Ms. Williams?

2. Ms. Williams stated she signed the petition on December 8th but the AJ stated she signed it on Dec 20th. Is it possible Ms. Williams name was on the petition being circulated but she did not sign it until Dec. 20?

3. The case stated the Senior  Manager started at North Metro in August 2008 and Ms. Williams problems started in Nov 2008. This coincidence does not pass the smell test.

4. What was the outcome of the petition to Members of Congress?