The administrative judge also upheld the penalty of removal from service.
at 14a-30a), and rejected respondent's affirmative defenses of discrimination. The administrative judge upheld the Postal Service's finding that respondent had failed to perform her duties in a satisfactory manner (id. After two days of hearings, an administrative judge of the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) affirmed respondent's dismissal. The Postal Service dismissed respondent effective November 26, 1997. The supervisor proposed that respondent be removed from service and a personnel officer upheld that removal. Letter carriers are responsible for correctly estimating the amount of time they will need to complete their work on a given day, within a margin of error of 15 to 20 minutes.
Based upon his observations and the amount of time taken by respondent and the other letter carriers, the supervisor charged respondent with overestimating her time by 1.5 hours. Respondent also did not appear to suffer from any physical impairment. The supervisor observed no unusual conditions on the route. After respondent reaffirmed her estimate of 3.5 hours overtime, the supervisor reassigned some of respondent's mail to other letter carriers and accompanied respondent on her route. The supervisor later testified that respondent had "a low volume of mail" on the day in question that he could not recall another request for so much overtime during a non-holiday period and that any request for more than two hours of overtime "sends up a red flag." Ibid. That request "seemed like a gross overestimate" to respondent's supervisor. On September 13, 1997, respondent requested 3.5 hours of overtime (or assistance from another letter carrier) to prepare and deliver the mail on her route.
The union representing respondent filed grievances challenging each of those three disciplinary actions. Two months later, on August 7, 1997, respondent received a 14-day suspension for delaying the mail, claiming unauthorized overtime, failing to follow instructions, and performing her duties in an unsatisfactory manner. Less than a month later, on June 7, 1997, respondent received a seven-day suspension for delaying the mail and failing to follow instructions. On May 13, 1997, respondent received a letter of warning for insubordination after she left work for a doctor's appointment without first putting her day's mail in order. The Postal Service disciplined respondent on three separate occasions between May 1997 and August 1997. Respondent worked for the United States Postal Service (Postal Service) as a Letter Technician in Hinesville, Georgia. The pertinent provisions of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, Pub. The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U.S.C. On October 2, 2000, the Chief Justice extended the time for filing a petition for a writ of certiorari to and including November 13, 2000. A petition for rehearing was denied on J(App., infra, 44a). The judgment of the court of appeals was entered on May 15, 2000. The opinion of the Merit Systems Protection Board (App., infra, 9a-12a) is unpublished, but the decision is noted at 84 M.S.P.R. The opinion of the court of appeals (App., infra, 1a-8a) is reported at 212 F.3d 1296. The Solicitor General, on behalf of the United States Postal Service, petitions for a writ of certiorari to review the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in this case.
1101 et seq., may take account of prior disciplinary actions that are the subject of pending grievance proceedings. Whether a federal agency, when disciplining or removing an employee for misconduct pursuant to the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, 5 U.S.C. In the Supreme Court of the United States
0 kommentar(er)
