Crawford v. Runyon

Citation37 F.3d 1338
Decision Date14 October 1994
Docket NumberNo. 94-1710,94-1710
Parties3 A.D. Cases 1326, 7 A.D.D. 102, 5 NDLR P 363 Eric CRAWFORD, Appellant, v. Marvin T. RUNYON, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Appellee.
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)

Michael Bastian, St. Louis, MO, argued, for appellant.

Eric T. Tolen, St. Louis, MO, argued (R. Andrew German and Brian M. Reimer, Washington, DC, on the brief), for appellee.

Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD, Chief Judge, WOLLMAN and BEAM, Circuit Judges.

RICHARD S. ARNOLD, Chief Judge.

Eric Crawford, a former mailhandler for the U.S. Postal Service, appeals the summary judgment entered against him in this "mixed case" action. The Postal Service fired Crawford, and the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) affirmed the removal. After exhausting his administrative remedies, Crawford brought this suit seeking review of the MSPB's decision pursuant to 5 U.S.C. Secs. 7702(b)(5)(A) and 7703(b)(2), and claiming that the Postal Service discriminated against him in violation of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 701 et seq. The District Court granted summary judgment for the Postmaster General on both counts. We affirm in part and reverse in part.

I.

Crawford, a Vietnam veteran with a prior history of depression and stress-related mental disorders, was hired by the Postal Service under its veterans' preference policy. He worked as a mailhandler at the St. Louis Main Post Office from September 1986 until his discharge in August 1989.

The Postal Service claims that it fired Crawford for threatening his supervisor and being unfit for duty. It points to two incidents where Crawford allegedly threatened to hurt or kill his supervisor and to the opinion of the Postal Service's medical officer that Crawford was unfit for duty and a danger to others. Crawford claims that he never threatened anyone at work, that the Postal Service's medical officer was not qualified to make psychiatric evaluations, and that qualified physicians had declared him to be fit for duty and no danger to others. Indeed, he contends that his supervisors lied about the alleged threats in a campaign to set him up for termination.

On February 12, 1989, Crawford had a heated argument with Daniel Slinger, one of his supervisors. Another of Crawford's supervisors, Charles Musgrave, discussed the incident with Crawford afterwards. During the discussion, Crawford mentioned his bouts of depression, and Musgrave asked him about it. Crawford told Musgrave that his doctors had told him to stay home whenever he felt he might hurt or kill someone. Musgrave took Crawford's statements seriously and asked in a memorandum to the Tour Manager that Crawford be scheduled for a fitness-for-duty examination to determine the probability that he might actually harm someone.

Instead, Crawford voluntarily checked into a local hospital the next day for a psychiatric evaluation. His examining physician, Dr. Karen Boesch, diagnosed him as suffering from major depression and paranoid schizophrenia. She noted that Crawford had both suicidal and homicidal thoughts due to his increased frustrations at work, and recommended that he be given less stressful tasks at the Post Office. After a two-week hospital stay, Dr. Boesch found that Crawford was fit to return to work.

The Post Office reassigned Crawford to a less stressful work environment where he would have a minimum of contact with other employees. Crawford claims that when his supervisors found out about his voluntary hospitalization, they decided, out of fear and a misunderstanding of the nature of his illness, to get rid of him. On April 6, 1989, Musgrave allegedly circulated a newspaper story about a paranoid psychotic who hacked ferry-boat passengers to death with a sword, with the notation in the margin that "This man apparently has the same illness as Mr. Crawford." According to Crawford, a few days later one of his supervisors, Perry Strong, used a meeting about Crawford's vacation schedule to question him about his illness and his hospitalization. He told Strong that his counselors at the VA had told him to seek treatment if he had any thoughts of hurting others, but denies that he said anything about wanting to hurt anyone at work.

As one would expect, the Postal Service has a different version of events. It claims that there was another incident between Slinger and Crawford, and that Strong met with Crawford to discuss it. Crawford allegedly declared--in front of both Strong and Slinger--that he felt he might kill or harm Slinger if he had to continue working with him. Strong memorialized the discussion with a handwritten memorandum, and the next day the Tour Manager placed Crawford on immediate administrative leave.

On June 1, 1989, the Postal Service's medical officer, Dr. Philip Shanahan, concluded that Crawford was not fit for duty. He based his decision on a psychiatric evaluation written by Dr. Boesch at the time of Crawford's voluntary hospitalization in February and on the two memoranda detailing the alleged incidents between Crawford and Slinger. Lottie Shannon, Crawford's immediate supervisor, issued a notice of proposed removal, and the Tour Manager sustained the removal.

Crawford appealed the Post Office's action to the Merit Systems Protection Board, which affirmed his removal. Having exhausted his administrative remedies, he filed this suit in the District Court, claiming discrimination violative of the Rehabilitation Act and seeking review of the administrative decision pursuant to 5 U.S.C. Secs. 7702(b)(5)(A) and 7703(b)(2). The District Court granted summary judgment for the Postmaster General, concluding that Crawford failed to show that the Postal Service's stated reason for firing him was a pretext for discrimination or that the MSPB's decision was arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion.

II.

We review a grant of summary judgment by applying the same standard as the District Court. Bieter Co. v. Blomquist, 987 F.2d 1319, 1320 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 114 S.Ct. 81, 126 L.Ed.2d 50 (1993). In a mixed case like this, the adverse agency action is reviewed on the administrative record, while the discrimination claim is reviewed de novo. Romain v. Shear, 799 F.2d 1416, 1421 (9th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1050, 107 S.Ct. 2183, 95 L.Ed.2d 840 (1987).

The District Court correctly held that Crawford failed to show that the MSPB's decision was an abuse of discretion. Under 5 U.S.C. Sec. 7703(c), the administrative decision must be affirmed unless it was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, procedurally infirm, or not supported by substantial evidence. A review of the record before the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
365 cases
  • Lewis v. Heartland Inns of America, L.L.C.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Iowa
    • November 13, 2008
    ... ... Transkrit Corp., 145 F.3d 986, 990 (8th Cir.1998) (citations omitted); see also Crawford v. Runyon, 37 F.3d 1338, 1341 (8th Cir.1994) ("[S]ummary judgment should seldom be used in employment-discrimination cases."); Hillebrand v. M-Tron ... ...
  • Hall v. Hormel Foods Corporation, 8:98CV304 (D. Neb. 2000)
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Nebraska
    • March 1, 2000
    ... ... Ridgeview Med. Ctr ., 128 F.3d 1201, 1205 (8th Cir. 1997) (citing Crawford v. Runyon , 37 F.3d 1338, 1341 (8th Cir. 1994)). Such deference, however, will not preclude the entry of summary judgment when the facts of the case ... ...
  • Kent v. Iowa
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Iowa
    • September 10, 2009
    ... ... Transkrit Corp., 145 F.3d 986, 990 (8th Cir. 1998) (citations omitted). See also Crawford v. Runyon, 37 F.3d 1338, 1341 (8th Cir.1994) (citing Johnson v. Minn. Historical Soc'y, 931 F.2d 1239, 1244 (8th Cir. 1991)) ("[S]ummary judgment ... ...
  • SIERRA CLUB NORTH STAR CHAPTER v. LaHood
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota
    • March 11, 2010
    ... ... 2548. Summary judgment is only appropriate when "there is no dispute of fact and where there exists only one conclusion." Crawford v. Runyon, 37 F.3d 1338, 1341 (8th Cir.1994) (citation omitted) ...          2. APA Standard ...         Sierra Club's claims ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 books & journal articles
  • Disability discrimination
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Federal Employment Jury Instructions - Volume I
    • April 30, 2014
    ...analysis to Rehabilitation Act claims. See, e.g. , D’Amico v. City of New York , 132 F.3d 1145, 1149 (2nd Cir. 1998); Crawford v. Runyon , 37 F.3d 1338, 1341 (8th Cir. 1994); Barth v. Gelb , 2 F.3d 1180, 1186 (D.C. Cir. 1993). Individuals proceeding under the Rehabilitation Act against the ......
  • Summary judgment
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Litigating Sexual Harassment & Sex Discrimination Cases Representing the employee
    • May 6, 2022
    ...the position of the nonmoving party.” Hindman v. Transkrit Corp. , 145 F.3d 986, 990 (8th Cir. 1998); see also Crawford v. Runyon , 37 F.3d 1338, 1341 (8th Cir. 1994) (“summary judgment should seldom be used in employment-discrimination cases”); Hillebrand v. M-Tron Indus., Inc. , 827 F.2d ......
  • Summary judgment
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Litigating Sexual Harassment & Sex Discrimination Cases Representing the employer
    • May 6, 2022
    ...the position of the nonmoving party.” Hindman v. Transkrit Corp. , 145 F.3d 986, 990 (8th Cir. 1998); see also Crawford v. Runyon , 37 F.3d 1338, 1341 (8th Cir. 1994) (“summary judgment should seldom be used in employment-discrimination cases”); Hillebrand v. M-Tron Indus., Inc. , 827 F.2d ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT