Parker v. U.S. Postal Service
| Decision Date | 20 May 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 86-1587,86-1587 |
| Citation | 819 F.2d 1113 |
| Parties | Stanley B. PARKER, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, Respondent. Appeal |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Federal Circuit |
Keith C. Kyles, Evans, Willis, Stotts & Kyles, of Memphis, Tenn., argued, for petitioner.
Linda T. Maramba, Commercial Litigation Branch, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., argued, for respondent. With her on the brief were Richard K. Willard, Asst. Atty. Gen., David M. Cohen, Director and Robert A. Reutershan, Asst. Director. Stephen E. Alpern, Associate General Counsel and Lori Joan Dym, Office of Labor Law, U.S. Postal Service, Washington, D.C., of counsel.
Before NEWMAN, BISSELL and ARCHER, Circuit Judges.
The decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB or board), MSPB No. AT07528510387, 31 M.S.P.R. 58, sustaining the United States Postal Service's (Postal Service or agency) removal of petitioner Stanley B. Parker (Parker) from his position as a distribution clerk (Grade 5) is affirmed.
Parker was indicted on January 28, 1985 by a Federal grand jury on the felony charge that he and another individual "being aided and abetted by each other, did intentionally possess with intent to distribute and did distribute approximately one ounce of cocaine" in violation of 21 U.S.C. Sec. 841(a)(1) and 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2. This indictment resulted from an undercover investigation conducted by the Postal Inspection Service at the Memphis, Tennessee, bulk mail center. Parker, while on duty, gave another postal employee (an informant) a telephone number to arrange for the purchase of cocaine. In two telephone conversations, Parker and the informant agreed that the cocaine transaction would occur at Parker's home. Both of these telephone conversations were recorded by the postal authorities. The informant and an undercover postal inspector went to Parker's home, where they met with Parker and Parker's step-brother, and purchased one ounce of cocaine for approximately $2,500 from Parker's step-brother. Parker pled guilty to the felony indictment on May 31, 1985 and received a one-year suspended sentence and probation.
The Postal Inspection Service's investigative memorandum with exhibits, dated January 2, 1985, was sent to postal officials after Parker was indicted. On the basis of this information, Parker was issued a notice of proposed removal, provided an oral hearing and subsequently removed from his Postal Service position effective February 14, 1985.
On Parker's appeal of his removal to the MSPB, the presiding official reduced the penalty to a demotion to Grade 4 and a sixty-day suspension. The presiding official found that the charge of violating section 661.53 of the agency's Employee and Labor Relations Manual, which proscribes, inter alia, criminal, dishonest, notoriously disgraceful or immoral conduct, or other conduct prejudicial to the Postal Service, was sustained and that, in fact, it was admitted by petitioner. As to the question of whether the removal of petitioner promoted the efficiency of the service, 5 U.S.C. Sec. 7513(a), the presiding official held that there was a nexus between the petitioner's misconduct and the agency's ability to fulfill its mission. Nexus was established by showing that petitioner's criminal activity involved another Postal Service employee and that the contact initiating the cocaine sale occurred because petitioner and the other employee both worked at the same facility. In further support of the nexus finding, the presiding official also noted that controlled substances were perceived as a problem by the Postal Service Recognizing that the agency has considerable discretion in selecting a penalty for employee misconduct and that petitioner's misconduct was serious, the presiding official determined nevertheless that there were a number of factors indicating that removal clearly exceeded the "tolerable limits of reasonableness." The factors mentioned by the presiding official included the fact that petitioner was not the actual seller of the drug, he enjoyed no financial gain, the sale occurred off agency premises, and there was no evidence that the sale resulted in the use of drugs at the postal facility. The presiding official also noted that (1) the agency failed to present evidence of notoriety or publicity surrounding the offense, any particular sensitivity regarding petitioner's position or any way in which his misconduct might affect his continued employment, (2) he was the only one of the ten facility employees engaged in drug trafficking to be charged with the lesser offense of aiding and abetting, (3) his record was better than that of the others, (4) he had ten years of unblemished service, and (5) his floor supervisors attested to his continuing value as a Postal Service employee.
at this facility, that nine other employees at the facility were involved in selling drugs, and that "such widespread activity within the facility necessarily affects the efficiency of the service."
The full board reversed the presiding official's mitigation of the removal penalty. It concluded that aiding and abetting the sale of drugs to another employee is a serious offense and reflects adversely on the honesty and integrity of the petitioner. The board noted that the Postal Service's deciding official testified that he considered the "mitigating factors such as years of service and absence of prior disciplinary record but found that they could not reduce the penalty when balanced against a serious charge for which a sentence of imprisonment might be imposed." The board also said the Postal Service established that it had a serious drug problem at the facility where petitioner was employed and that all of the other nine employees who were apprehended in the undercover investigation were removed or resigned in the face of removal. It concluded that petitioner's misconduct was sufficiently similar to the conduct of the other employees in that petitioner was directly involved in the sale of drugs, the transaction was initiated at work, involved several telephone conversations in arranging for the transaction and terminated at petitioner's home, that it was not outweighed by the mitigating factors mentioned by the presiding official. The board therefore sustained the removal of petitioner as a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
National Treasury Employees Union v. Chertoff
...it is so `outrageously disproportionate' to the charged offense ... as to constitute an abuse of discretion"); Parker v. U.S. Postal Service, 819 F.2d 1113, 1116 (Fed.Cir.1987) ("deference is given to the agency's judgment unless the penalty ... is so harsh and unconscionably disproportiona......
-
Bloom v. McHugh
...Circuit has suggested that a sufficient nexus is established where the employee's misconduct occurred at work. Parker v. U.S. Postal Serv., 819 F.2d 1113, 1116 (Fed.Cir.1987). Here, defendants have shown that Bloom was dishonest and evasive with her supervisor, while at work. That showing i......
-
Rodriguez v. Dep't of Veterans Affairs
...because it is unreasonable on its face by being "unconscionably disproportionate" to the offense, see, e.g. , Parker v. U.S. Postal Serv. , 819 F.2d 1113, 1116 (Fed. Cir. 1987), but also because the deciding official did not weigh the relevant factors bearing on the appropriateness of the p......
-
LaChance v. Devall
...have instead repeatedly emphasized the agency's exclusive domain in disciplining its employees. See, e.g., Parker v. United States Postal Service, 819 F.2d 1113, 1116 (Fed.Cir.1987) ("It is well established that the determination of the proper disciplinary action to be taken to promote the ......