Over the next few days, PostalReporter.com will resume posting of legal cases.

The United States Postal Service (USPS) removed an Oregon Postmaster based on a charge of unacceptable conduct, supported by numerous specifications of particular incidents. The Postmaster appealed the removal decision to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), which upheld the removal.

The notice of removal charged him with unacceptable conduct and included ten (10) separate specifications detailing particular conduct. The specifications included allegations that the Postmaster had made disparaging and inappropriate comments and displayed inappropriate behavior—vulgar, sexual comments and conduct—toward employees and customers, particularly female employees and customers, at the West Linn Post Office.  The Postmaster, through his union representative, provided written and oral responses to the deciding official. On August 10, 2016, the deciding official found that removal was warranted, and the Postmaster was removed two days later.

According to court records:

Ramon Canarios began working for USPS on July 4, 1998. At the time of his removal, which took effect on August 12, 2016, he held the position of Postmaster, Executive and Administrative (EAS) Grade 21.

On September 3, 2014, USPS placed Canarios on administrative leave pending an investigation into allegations that he engaged in misconduct. USPS conducted interviews with Canarios and a number of employees from the West Linn Post Office (Oregon) . On May 2, 2016, more than 600 days after the investigation began, the Postal Service proposed to fire Canarios.

Canarios appealed the removal decision to MSPB. He testified and was represented by counsel at the hearing held on January 24, 2017. He denied the charged misconduct, argued that several specifications were part of an earlier (2009) investigation and that other specifications were too general for him to be able to answer, complained that the long investigation period caused
irreparable harm, and contended that his supervisor was biased against him. He also argued that USPS had violated his due process rights by failing to provide specific dates for the charged conduct and copies of investigation interviews relied on by the Postal Service in making the removal decision.

MSPB found that Canarios engaged in unacceptable conduct, there was a clear nexus between the charged conduct and the efficiency of the service, and the penalty of removal was reasonable. MSPB also found that the length of the investigation did not create harmful error and that USPS did not violate Canarios’s due process rights.

It specifically found that the “record is replete with instances of [Mr. Canarios] swearing and using derogatory terms.” It also considered written and oral statements from Canarios denying the allegations and claiming the employees were lying. And, having seen Canarios testify, it found that his “testimony and statements regarding the events set out in the specifications lack credibility based on [his] demeanor, the inconsistency of his version of events with other evidence, and his bias because he is the subject of the disciplinary action,” and that he was not “forthcoming.”

Canarios complained that MSPB failed to consider reasons the witnesses against him should be disbelieved. Specifically, he pointed to an incident in which his supervisor reprimanded him in front of other employees—which he said motivated employees to make false complaints because they did not like his management style. But MSPB in fact considered that contention, reasonably finding the contention an insufficient basis to disbelieve the witnesses. The same is true of Canarios’s reliance on the absence of other complaints or grievances filed between the 2009 investigation and the start of the 2014 investigation.

MSPB found that Canarios’s conduct interfered with his ability to perform his duties satisfactorily, negatively affected the performance and morale of other staff, and eroded the Postal Service’s trust and confidence in him. Canarios has not given us any reason to question those MSPB findings.

As to the penalty of removal, MSPB found that Canarios’s misconduct was serious and recurrent. Canarios argues that MSPB failed to properly consider his past work record, mitigating circumstances, and alternative sanctions. But MSPB explained that the Postal Service had considered those penalty factors, under Douglas v. Veterans Admin., 5 M.S.P.R. 380, 305–08 (1981), which were relevant to the case, including: the nature and seriousness of the offense, the employee’s job level, the employee’s past work record, the effect of the offense on the employee’s ability to perform, and mitigating factors. MSPB found that the Postal Service could reasonably deem Canarios’s past good performance at work and 18 years of federal service insufficient to outweigh the seriousness of the charges. More generally, MSPB properly explained that the Postal Service had considered mitigating factors but found them insufficient to justify a penalty less severe than removal.

The Federal Appeals Court ruled MSPB correctly concluded that Canarios’s due process rights were not violated. Removal upheld…