USPS Wins Age and FMLA Claims After Court Finds Performance Ratings and RIF Priority Were Legitimate

Vick, a former Manager of Distribution Operations at the Postal Service’s Joseph Curseen, Jr. and Thomas Morris, Jr. Processing and Distribution Center in Washington, D.C., sued Postmaster General David Steiner alleging violations of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and the Family Medical Leave Act. She claimed she was subjected to a hostile work environment, constructively discharged, and denied proper leave accommodations.

The dispute centered on Vick’s 2011 performance evaluation, which her supervisor rated as a "Non-Contributor," and a subsequent 2012/2013 reduction in force that impacted her position. Vick argued the rating and RIF placement were motivated by age discrimination, noting she was over 40 while some retained colleagues were younger.

Judge Chulkan found the Postal Service offered legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions. The court credited testimony that Vick’s rating reflected documented performance shortcomings, including unworked mail and poor subordinate accountability. The court also found that other MDOs received lower ratings for similar performance issues, undermining Vick’s claim of disparate treatment.

Regarding the RIF, the court found that Vick received a lower priority for retention due to her "Non-Contributor" rating compared to colleagues who earned "Contributor" ratings. Additionally, one retained colleague was protected by veterans’ preference under federal regulations. Vick also conceded she did not apply for available MDO positions after the RIF, making her ineligible for reassignment.

On the FMLA claims, Vick alleged interference when her supervisor sent a letter requesting medical documentation for her ongoing leave to care for a terminally ill mother. The court found the supervisor acted in reliance on HR instructions to comply with audit requirements, describing the situation as a bureaucratic snafu amounting to negligence rather than willful interference.

The court also rejected Vick’s retaliation claims, noting that a July 2012 Letter of Warning issued during her leave was rescinded and did not constitute an adverse employment action. The court found no credible evidence that the Postal Service took adverse actions because Vick exercised her FMLA rights.

Judge Chulkan concluded that Vick failed to meet her burden of proof on both the ADEA and FMLA claims. The court will enter judgment for the Defendant under Rule 58, with a separate order to issue.