A Colorado Mail Processing Clerk (and 10-point Vet) petitioned for review of two final decisions of the Merit Systems Protection Board . One decision, Strozier v. United States Postal Service, denied Mr. Strozier’s challenge to the Postal Service placing him on enforced leave from his position as a Mail Processing Clerk. The other decision, Strozier v. United States Postal Service, denied Strozier’s challenge to the Postal Service removing him from the same position. The court affirmed both MSPB decisions. Strozier v. U.S. Postal Service (6/29/06)

MSPB found that the Postal Service demonstrated by a “preponderance of the evidence that Strozier was properly placed on enforced leave pending resolution of his medically-based employment problems.” (Strozier was nominated for reasonable accommodation consideration by the District Reasonable Accommodation Committee (DRAC), which asked him to supplement his medical documentation for further review. Because of the absence of any medical or other information that his job limitations substantially affected any major life activities, DRAC concluded that Mr. Strozier was not covered by the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and thus not eligible for reasonable accommodation. Strozier was informed that he had three options: apply for other positions for which he would qualify medically and otherwise; seek disability retirement; or resign).

Strozier alleged that he was hired as a Distribution Clerk, in which position he served until February of 2002. He asserted he could perform all of the duties of that position without a need for accommodation. He argued further that in February of 2002, he was assigned to serve as a Mail Processing Clerk and that he was not physically capable of performing the duties of that position. He charged that the Postal Service knew that his disabilities prevented him from performing these new duties and that he was assigned to the Mail Processing Clerk position as retaliation for filing discrimination complaints. He contends that he should have simply been returned to his prior job as a Distribution Clerk, which was similar to his temporary light duty assignment. Accordingly, he asserts that it was unreasonable for the Postal Service to instruct him to choose between bidding for another position, disability retirement, and resignation.

But MSPB found that no such change of job occurred. The Board expressed as a factual finding: “The following salient facts are undisputed unless otherwise stated. At all pertinent times, the appellant was employed as a Mail Processing Clerk . . . . The appellant had been employed by the agency since July 4, 1998.”  The Notification of Personnel Action that accompanied Mr. Strozier’s change in title stated, “[A]ll distribution clerk has the same change it’s just a name change from Distribution Clerk to Mail Processing Clerk. Everyone still has their bid assigned job.”

 The Board found that as of September 17, 2002, Strozier ceased coming to work altogether, although he conceded that there was still useful work that he could have performed for the Postal Service.  Strozier was placed on enforced leave on November 8, 2002. On December 10, 2002, and January 14 and January 17, 2003, Mr. Strozier was sent notices to report for a due process meeting (also known as an investigative interview) concerning his absence from work. Mr. Strozier attended the meeting, held on January 27, and was represented by a union steward.  Strozier refused to cooperate or answer any questions during the meeting, despite the union steward’s guidance to the contrary.

On March 14, 2003, Mr. Strozier was issued a notice of proposed removal for failure to perform the requirements of his position due to medical inability to perform. Given that he did not respond to the notice, the Plant Manager issued a decision removing Mr. Strozier on May 25, 2003.

MSPB found that the Postal Service demonstrated that taking disciplinary action against Mr. Strozier was for the “efficiency of the service” in accordance with 5 U.S.C. § 7513(a) and that placing him on enforced leave and ultimately removing him were appropriate remedies. 

In short, the court ruled that the Board did not err in finding that Strozier was properly removed based on his failure to perform the requirements of his position based on medical inability to perform.