Lafayette v. Frank

• Citation: 688 F. Supp. 138
• Decision Date: 03 June 1988
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 88-87.
• Parties: Mary-Anne LAFAYETTE v. Anthony FRANK, Postmaster General of the U.S. Postal Service and Michael Shinay, Postmaster, Burlington, Vermont, in their official capacities.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Vermont

688 F. Supp. 138

Mary-Anne LAFAYETTE v. Anthony FRANK, Postmaster General of the U.S. Postal Service and Michael Shinay, Postmaster, Burlington, Vermont, in their official capacities.

Civ. A. No. 88-87.

United States District Court, D. Vermont.

June 3, 1988.

John D. Shullenberger, Mickenberg, Dunn, Sirotkin & Dorsch, Burlington, Vt., for plaintiff.

John M. Conroy, Asst. U.S. Atty., Burlington, Vt., Vanessa Miree, and Catherine V. Pagano, U.S. Postal Service, Washington, D.C., for defendants.

COFFRIN, Chief Judge.

Plaintiff's employer, the United States Postal Service, reassigned her in order to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest. Plaintiff claims that the reassignment violates her first amendment right of association and her fifth amendment rights to due process and privacy. She seeks a preliminary injunction ordering her reinstatement in her previous position and ordering the Postal Service to provide her with an opportunity to confront and cross-examine witnesses at a hearing before it undertakes any further personnel action relating to the alleged apparent conflict of interest. For the reasons stated below, we deny plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction.

Background/Findings of Fact

The parties have stipulated to the following facts:

1. The plaintiff, Mary-Anne Lafayette, is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the City of Burlington, Vermont.

2. At all times relevant to this action, defendant Shinay has been acting as an employee of the United States Postal Service.

3. Until April 9, 1988, plaintiff was employed as a full-time, non-probationary Logistics Coordinator at the Management Sectional Center (MSC) of the United States Postal Service in Burlington, Vermont. Plaintiff was compensated at a EAS-15 Step 6 grade level at an annual salary of $33,023.00.

4. Part of plaintiff's responsibilities as the Logistics Coordinator included providing guidance to and coordinating activities between contract carriers and supervisors of the Postal Service to ensure the efficient movement of the mail and mail equipment.

5. On September 27, 1987, plaintiff informed defendant Shinay that she had a personal relationship with Mr. Jerry Nelson, a highway contractor with routes emanating from the Burlington Management Sectional Center. See Joint Exhibit 3.

6. Pursuant to defendant Shinay's instructions, the plaintiff ceased dealing with any matters in her job which could involve Mr. Nelson and those matters were to be instead handled by Mr. Shawn O'Brien, MSC, Director of Mail Processing, plaintiff's supervisor.

7. In a memorandum dated November 16, 1987, defendant Shinay advised James French, Regional Counsel for the Northeast Region of the possible conflict of interest and requested advice as to whether or not plaintiff could continue in her position as Logistics Coordinator. In that memorandum, defendant Shinay said that several days earlier, plaintiff had told him that she had started living with contractor Nelson. See Joint Exhibit 4.

8. Mr. French determined that in light of plaintiff's relationship with Mr. Nelson, plaintiff's duties and close relationship with the employees who administer contracts could create or appear to create a conflict of interest and so advised defendant Shinay in a memorandum dated November 18, 1987.

9. Plaintiff was advised of Mr. French's ruling regarding the conflict of interest issue and was informed that she could appeal the decision within 30 days to the Postal Service's Ethical Conduct Officer in Washington, D.C.

10. On December 18, 1987, plaintiff filed a written appeal with the Ethical Conduct Officer in Washington D.C. The appeal was handled by Mr. Charles Hawley, Assistant Ethical Conduct Officer for the Postal Service. In a letter dated January 8, 1988, plaintiff advised Mr. Hawley that the previous living arrangements between herself and Mr. Nelson were terminated. Plaintiff also requested a hearing to present further information, if the decision was to be unfavorable. See Joint Exhibit 7.

11. On January 25, 1988, Mr. Hawley issued an opinion in which he advised plaintiff that she could continue to work as the Logistics Coordinator provided that she remove herself from any situation which involved Mr. Nelson as the highway contractor. Plaintiff was further advised that she was not entitled to an administrative hearing regarding the conflict of interest issue. However, the Postal Service would consider any additional information as well as any comments which she had regarding its conclusion prior to the issuance of a final decision. See Joint Exhibit 11.

12. On February 8, 1988, plaintiff requested that the Postal Service reconsider its ruling. See Joint Exhibit 12.

13. On February 19, 1988, William, Ayers, Manager of the Transportation Management Center, Springfield, MA sent a memorandum to Mr. Hawley regarding the plaintiff. In the memorandum, Mr. Ayers stated that Mr. Nelson had seven (7) contracts in the Burlington, Vermont area which were under the plaintiff's supervision and that other contractors had complained that Mr. Nelson was receiving preferential treatment. The Memorandum of February 19, 1988 written by William Ayers was first provided to the plaintiff when a copy was enclosed with the letter to her of March 25, 1988 from Charles B. Hawley. See Joint Exhibit 14.

14. On March 25, 1988, Mr. Hawley issued a final ruling concerning the conflict of interest issue. In the decision, Mr. Hawley concluded that as long as plaintiff was the Logistics Coordinator and had responsibilities which may affect, or appear to affect, directly or indirectly the interest of Mr. Nelson, plaintiff's holding of that position would be compromised. The matter was remanded to plaintiff's supervisors for resolution. Mr. Hawley's letter of March 25, 1988 to the plaintiff was the final decision of the United States Postal Service with respect to the plaintiff's conflict of interest. See Joint Exhibit 15.

15. William Ayers did not personally receive any direct complaints from contractors that Mr. Nelson was receiving preferential treatment, but relied upon oral statements from other persons. Ayers states that other postal officials contacted him to say that contractors had complained of favoritism from plaintiff towards Mr. Nelson.

16. Neither Charles Hawley nor James H. French, Regional Council sic, conducted an investigation into the facts of any alleged complaints concerning Mr. Nelson or the plaintiff.

17. Effective April 8, 1988, plaintiff was reassigned to the position of Supervisor, Mails, EAS-15. Her salary, benefits and work schedule were unaffected by the reassignment. The plaintiff's personal association with Mr. Nelson was the motivating factor in the decision by defendants to reassign plaintiff from her duties as Logistics Coordinator.

Stipulation of Facts (April 28, 1988).

On April 8, 1988, plaintiff filed this action challenging her reassignment from the position of Logistics Coordinator to Supervisor of the Mails. Plaintiff contends that her reassignment because of her personal relationship with Nelson violates her first amendment right of association and her fifth amendment right to privacy, and that the procedures defendant followed in reassigning her violated her fifth amendment right to due process. She seeks a variety of declaratory and injunctive relief.

At an April 8, 1988, hearing, this court denied plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order precluding her reassignment.

On April 28, 1988, the court held a hearing on plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction. Plaintiff seeks an interim order requiring defendant to reinstate her as Logistics Coordinator and, if any further personnel action is to be taken on account of her relationship with Nelson, requiring defendants to afford her a hearing where she can confront and cross-examine witnesses.

The parties submitted joint exhibits and stipulated to the facts detailed above. In addition, Shawn O'Brien and plaintiff presented testimony relevant to the issues of irreparable harm and the balance of hardships. On the basis of that testimony, the court finds as follows:

1. Plaintiff served as Logistics Coordinator at the Burlington MSC for three years. She was in all respects an outstanding employee, a fact reflected in a series of glowing performance evaluations.

2. O'Brien had agreed to the arrangement under which plaintiff remained in the position of Logistics Coordinator while O'Brien, as plaintiff's supervisor, handled all Logistics Coordinator duties relating to Nelson. O'Brien had no problem with this arrangement, and it did not impede his efficiency or effectiveness in his job or the efficiency of the mail processing operation at the Burlington MSC.

3. The Supervisor of Mails position to which plaintiff was reassigned is not a career dead end. Rather, the position has significant potential for career advancement within the Postal Service.

4. Plaintiff's reassignment did not involve any loss of pay or benefits or change in schedule.

5. At a March 11, 1988, meeting attended by plaintiff, Nelson, and Shinay, Shinay told plaintiff that she would have to choose between her relationship with Nelson and her job as Logistics Coordinator.

6. Plaintiff has never been provided with any details of the alleged complaints of favoritism towards Nelson referred to in Ayer's February 19, 1988, memorandum.

7. As a consequence of the Postal Service's conflict of interest determination, plaintiff and Nelson have by mutual agreement scaled back their relationship. They now communicate only by infrequent telephone calls.

8. As of the date of the preliminary injunction hearing, plaintiff had not reported to work as Supervisor of Mails. She had taken a week of annual leave and then had been restricted from all work under her doctor's orders.

The Postal Service has assured the court that the Logistics Coordinator position will not be permanently filled until this litigation...