United States Postal Service v. Gregory
2001 U.S. LEXIS 10307, 122 S. Ct. 431, 151 L. Ed. 2d 323 (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 does not prohibit the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) from independently reviewing and considering an employee's prior disciplinary actions that are subject to ongoing grievance proceedings when determining the reasonableness of a subsequent, more severe disciplinary penalty.
Facts:
- Maria Gregory worked for the United States Postal Service (USPS) as a letter technician.
- In April 1997, Gregory received a letter of warning for insubordination, for which she filed a grievance through her union.
- Later in April 1997, the USPS suspended Gregory for seven days for delaying the mail, and she filed a second grievance.
- In August 1997, the USPS suspended Gregory for 14 days for several violations, including failing to deliver certified mail, prompting her to file a third grievance.
- On September 13, 1997, a supervisor determined that Gregory had excessively overestimated the overtime required to complete her mail route.
- Based on the September 13 incident and the three prior disciplinary actions that were still pending in the grievance process, the USPS terminated Gregory's employment in November 1997.
Procedural Posture:
- The United States Postal Service terminated Maria Gregory's employment.
- Gregory appealed her termination to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), a federal administrative agency.
- An MSPB Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued an initial decision upholding the termination.
- While Gregory's petition for review by the full Board was pending, an arbitrator in a separate grievance proceeding overturned one of her prior disciplinary actions.
- The full MSPB denied Gregory's petition for review, making the ALJ's decision final.
- Gregory (as petitioner) sought review of the Board's final decision in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals reversed in part, holding that the Board could not consider prior disciplinary actions subject to ongoing grievance proceedings, and remanded the case.
- The United States Postal Service (as petitioner) petitioned for, and was granted, a writ of certiorari from the Supreme Court of the United States.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 prohibit the Merit Systems Protection Board from independently reviewing and considering an employee's prior disciplinary actions that are subject to ongoing grievance proceedings when determining the reasonableness of a subsequent, more severe disciplinary penalty?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice O’Connor
No. The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 does not prohibit the Merit Systems Protection Board from independently reviewing prior disciplinary actions that are pending in grievance proceedings when assessing the reasonableness of a penalty. The Board has wide latitude and discretion in how it reviews agency disciplinary actions, and the judicial standard of review is narrow. The Federal Circuit's per se rule forbidding such consideration is not supported by any statutory text and would cause undue delay or force agencies to ignore an employee's relevant disciplinary history. The CSRA creates parallel, not interdependent, structures of review (Board review and grievance procedures), and any potential for conflicting outcomes is a result of this statutory design. The Board's authority to review a major adverse action like termination necessarily includes the authority to review the prior, minor actions that form the basis for that termination.
Concurring - Justice Thomas
No. While I agree with the judgment, the Court should have explicitly held that the Board's specific review mechanism, the 'Bolling' framework, provides employees with adequate procedural safeguards. The CSRA establishes the Board’s review process and collectively bargained grievance procedures as entirely separate structures with no statutory link. Therefore, the Board is not required to wait for an employee's pending grievances to be resolved before considering prior disciplinary actions. The argument that the Board's review conflicts with the 'preponderance of the evidence' standard is unavailing, as the statute does not require the agency to re-prove the underlying facts of every prior disciplinary action.
Concurring - Justice Ginsburg
No. I concur only in the judgment because the majority's reasoning relies on the Board's 'independent review' without resolving whether the highly deferential 'Bolling' standard is consistent with the statutory 'preponderance of the evidence' requirement. The proper ground for the decision is that the Board's own regulations permit it to reopen a case 'at any time.' If a prior disciplinary action is later overturned in arbitration, the employee can petition the Board to reopen and reconsider its decision, and it would likely be 'arbitrary and capricious' for the Board to refuse. This reopening mechanism provides a sufficient backstop to correct any unfairness, making the Federal Circuit's rigid prohibitory rule unnecessary.
Analysis:
This decision affirms the discretionary authority of the Merit Systems Protection Board in federal employment disputes, clarifying that the Board and collectively bargained grievance procedures are parallel, not interdependent, systems of review under the CSRA. It prevents a procedural bottleneck where the Board would have to await the conclusion of potentially lengthy grievance processes before ruling on major disciplinary actions, thus strengthening an agency's ability to rely on an employee's full disciplinary record. The ruling leaves open the question of the adequacy of the Board's specific review mechanism (the 'Bolling' standard) under the 'preponderance of the evidence' test, signaling a potential avenue for future litigation.
Unlock the full brief for United States Postal Service v. Gregory