Book v. United States Postal Service

7 Citing cases

  1. McClaskey v. United States Dept. of Energy

    720 F.2d 583 (9th Cir. 1983)   Cited 17 times
    In McClaskey, the court upheld the dismissal of an employee who deliberately covered up an act of embezzlement by fellow employees who had fraudulently used government purchase documents to acquire government material for their personal use.

    We observe finally that both this and other circuits have upheld dismissals in other cases involving offenses which appear less serious or concerning employees with longer service records than McClaskey's. See Book v. United States Postal Service, 675 F.2d 158 (8th Cir. 1982) (per curiam) (postmaster discharged for unofficial use and unauthorized possession of Postal Service property worth approximately $22); Brewer v. United States Postal Service, 647 F.2d 1093, 227 Ct.Cl. 276 (postal employee of 25 years discharged for falsifying another employee's timecard and removing an undeliverable piece of third-class mail from the post office); Alsbury v. United States Postal Service, 530 F.2d 852 (9th Cir. 1976) (employee discharged for removing several items of postal property upon his transfer to a new post office). We conclude that the penalty imposed by the board here was not so disproportionate to the offense as to amount to an abuse of discretion.

  2. Munnelly v. United States Postal Service

    805 F.2d 295 (8th Cir. 1986)   Cited 14 times
    In Munnelly v. United States Postal Service, 805 F.2d 295 (8th Cir. 1986), the Postal Service discharged a postmaster following his nolo contendere plea to an action by the Nebraska Accounting and Disclosure Commission ("NADC") charging the postmaster with financial misconduct in his role as a member of the Board of Directors of the Omaha Public Power District. Pursuant to the nolo contendere plea, the NADC made findings of civil violations and imposed a civil penalty of $1,000 for each violation.

    Where an employee is removed for off-duty or off-work premises conduct, section 7513(a) has been read as requiring a nexus between the conduct and the efficiency of the service. See, e.g., Graybill v. United States Postal Service, 782 F.2d at 1573; Crofoot v. United States Government Printing Office, 761 F.2d at 664; Book v. United States Postal Service, 675 F.2d 158, 161 (8th Cir. 1982). Munnelly asserts that his activities connected with the Omaha Public Power District were wholly unrelated to his duties and responsibilities as postmaster, and the NADC findings regarding his activities could therefore have no effect on Munnelly's job performance or on the efficient operation of the Omaha Post Office.

  3. DeWitt v. Department of Navy

    747 F.2d 1442 (Fed. Cir. 1984)   Cited 23 times
    Holding the Board's affirmance of the penalty of removal was "within the discretionary authority of the Board 'because the record reflects a reasoned concern for the factors appropriate to evaluating a penalty.'"

    In two recent unauthorized possession cases where the employee was in a position of trust, the penalty of removal was upheld. Book v. United States Postal Service, 675 F.2d 158 (8th Cir. 1982) (demonstrated lack of trustworthiness was directly connected to employee's job performance and position); Jones v. Department of the Navy, 83 FMSR ¶ 5009 (MSPB 1983) (removal an appropriate penalty since the employee's honesty and integrity were important to the agency in view of the position of trust he occupied in the care and control of the items he was charged with stealing). It is not just the dollar amount of the theft but the attitude of the employee that matters.

  4. Adams v. Department of Transportation

    735 F.2d 488 (Fed. Cir. 1984)   Cited 28 times
    Rejecting a "per se rule" that a procedural error requires reversal and explaining that the harmful error requirement asks whether "the wrongful procedure harmed the employee in the presentation of his defense so that a different result might have been reached?"

    Adams concedes the propriety of adverse inferences in civil cases when a party is silent in the face of probative adverse evidence. See Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308, 318-19, 96, S.Ct. 1551, 1557-58, 47 L.Ed.2d 810 (1976); Book v. Postal Service, 675 F.2d 158 (8th Cir. 1982). The briefs say failure to deny the charges is irrelevant because the agency had not presented sufficient adverse evidence.

  5. Diaz v. United States Postal Service

    658 F. Supp. 484 (E.D. Cal. 1987)   Cited 10 times
    In Diaz v. U.S. Postal Service, 658 F. Supp. 484 (E.D.Cal. 1987), a federal employee was fired for unsatisfactory attendance at work.

    When an employee is dismissed for an offense involving deliberate deception, the required nexus between the misconduct and the efficiency of the service is obvious. McClaskey v. U.S. Dept. of Energy, 720 F.2d at 589; Book v. U.S. Postal Service, 675 F.2d 158 (8th Cir. 1982). Because the plaintiff's falsification and unsatisfactory attendance were clearly job related, such on duty misconduct raises a presumption that the required nexus has been met. McClaskey, at 589.

  6. Securities & Exchange Commission v. Tome

    638 F. Supp. 629 (S.D.N.Y. 1986)   Cited 7 times
    Stating in dicta that a different standard under Rule 801(d)(E) should be applied in civil and criminal cases

    In addition, federal courts have held that the pendency of related criminal proceedings is irrelevant in determining whether to draw an adverse inference, see e.g., Diebold v. Civil Service Commission, 611 F.2d 697, 701 (8th Cir. 1979) (holding that the fact that the defendant asserting the privilege in a civil action has already been indicted "has no bearing on the constitutional issues involved"); Roberts v. Taylor, 540 F.2d 540, 542 (1st Cir. 1976) (stating that the Baxter decision does not "accord leeway" for distinctions between a situation in which criminal charges are pending and a situation in which only a possibility of criminal charges are involved), cert. denied sub nom., Roberts v. Director, Department of Corrections, 429 U.S. 1076, 97 S.Ct. 819, 50 L.Ed.2d 796 (1977), and many decisions have drawn an adverse inference when criminal charges are pending. See e.g., Hoover v. Knight, 678 F.2d 578, 582 n. 1 (5th Cir. 1982); Book v. United States Postal Service, 675 F.2d 158, 160 n. 4 (8th Cir. 1982) (per curiam); Arthurs v. Stern, 560 F.2d 477, 478 (1st Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1034, 98 S.Ct. 768, 54 L.Ed.2d 782 (1978); Rhode Island v. Cardillo, 592 F. Supp. 655, 658 (D.R.I. 1984); Marcello v. Long Island Railroad, 465 F. Supp. 54, 61 (S.D.N.Y. 1979). The permissible adverse inference has been used, however, only for the purpose of determining the scope of Tome's liability, following a determination of his liability without use of that inference.

  7. Cioppa v. United States Postal Service

    603 F. Supp. 590 (W.D.N.Y. 1984)   Cited 2 times

    Although a federal court may not second guess the wisdom of administrative personnel decisions, federal courts routinely review dismissals of Postal Service employees for the limited purpose of ensuring that such decisions are neither arbitrary nor capricious — precisely the sort of review requested by plaintiff in this case. Book v. U.S. Postal Service, 675 F.2d 158 (8th Cir. 1982); Yacavone v. Bolger, 645 F.2d 1028 (D.C. Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 844, 102 S.Ct. 159, 70 L.Ed.2d 130 (1981); Adkins v. Hampton, 586 F.2d 1070 (5th Cir. 1978); Alsbury v. U.S. Postal Service, 530 F.2d 852 (9th Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 828, 97 S.Ct. 85, 50 L.Ed.2d 91 (1976); Ross v. U.S. Postal Service, 556 F. Supp. 729 (N.D.Ala. 1983); Poole v. U.S. Postal Service, 540 F. Supp. 105 (S.D.Ohio 1982); Oates v. U.S. Postal Service, 444 F. Supp. 100 (S.D.N Y 1978); Withers v. U.S. Postal Service, 417 F. Supp. 1 (W.D.Mo. 1976). Additionally, federal courts have also exercised their inherent power of review over "arbitrary or capricious" agency action in cases involving the dismissal of probationary Postal employees. Jordan v. Bolger, 522 F. Supp. 1197 (N.D.Miss.