On August 9, 2004, while Charles White was attending the Mail Handler’s Union picnic in Jacksonville, Florida, he and one of his coworkers, Mr. John Sawyer , became involved in a fight involving deadly weapons. After conducting an investigation, the Postal Service removed White from duty. White appealed to MSPB, which affirmed the Postal Serrvice’s decision. The administrative judge found that, based on White’s admissions against interest that he brandished a knife against a co-worker, the Postal Service proved its charge of improper conduct. The AJ’s decision became the final decision of the Board after the Board denied White’s petition for review.

White argues that, because the fight occurred when he was off duty, the Board erred in finding that the nexus had been established. The Postal Service argues that the Board’s finding of nexus should be affirmed and notes that this court has found that off-duty conduct can give rise to a presumption of nexus. The Postal Service argues that White’s conduct was sufficiently egregious that a nexus between the conduct and the efficiency of the service is presumed.

 MSPB held that “disciplining [White] clearly promotes the efficiency of the Federal service notwithstanding that the fight occurred off duty.”  The Board found that the misconduct had an adverse effect on the efficiency of the service because, although the misconduct did occur off-duty, it involved two agency employees, occurred in the presence of many postal employees who were attending a union-sanctioned event, troubled postal employees after the fact, and put postal employees in harm’s way.

The facts clearly indicate that White’s fellow employees remained concerned about what had happened and complained about the incident to their supervisor. We therefore agree with the Board’s findings and reasoning that White’s misconduct against his fellow employee, in front of many co-workers at a union-sanctioned event, had a chilling effect upon relationships at the workplace which can only adversely impact the agency’s ability to fulfill its mission with proper efficiency.

White also challenges the penalty, stating that “[t]here could have been a suspension instead of a dismissal since the other party had already resigned from the Postal Service and the likelihood [sic] of this incident spilling over at the workplace would have been moot.” The “[d]etermination of an appropriate penalty is a matter committed primarily to the sound discretion of the employing agency.”

The Board also found that the harm caused by White’s misconduct caused lingering concerns in the workplace in that employees were worried about the incident. Id. In light of these findings, White’s arguments do not demonstrate that his removal from the workplace was an abuse of discretion by the Postal Service.

The Court of Appeals upheld MSPB’s decision sustaining a charge of improper conduct and affirming the penalty of removal.

WHITE v. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE [PDF] April 10, 2006, non-precedent