Postal Manager’s Demotion for Dropping His Pants Upheld

The United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit ruled against former EAS-24 Postal Manager for unacceptable conduct.

Natty joined the Postal Service in 1990. By June 2010, he served as an EAS-24 Manager of Distribution Operations (MDO), supervising a total workforce of 130 employees, including six subordinate supervisors. On June 19, 2010, the agency demoted Natty to a PS-04 Part-Time Flex Mail Handler based on a finding of unacceptable conduct. Natty appealed his demotion and the Administrative Judge (“AJ”) found that Natty’s comments about race and sex, and the intentional dropping of his pants, supported the unacceptable conduct charge. Natty v. U.S. Postal Serv., No. SF-0752-10-0847-I-1 (M.S.P.B. Oct. 29, 2010). The AJ also found the agency’s action timely and Natty’s demotion to a non-managerial position within the agency’s discretion. Id. The AJ’s decision became the final decision of the Board after the Board denied Natty’s petition for review. Natty v. U. S. Postal Serv., No. SF-0752-10-0847-I-1 (M.S.P.B. May 6, 2011). Natty timely appealed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9).

Natty claims the AJ erred by finding that he intentionally dropped his pants. Regarding this incident, the AJ specifically credited the testimony of Carol Miller, Shirley Rogers, Angela Johnson, and Hershel Morrow, and disbelieved Natty’s testimony that his pants accidentally slipped. Natty stresses an inconsistency in Morrow’s testimony regarding the date of the pants- dropping incident, but the AJ nonetheless credited Morrow’s testimony as a whole. We cannot say that this single inconsistency undermines the AJ’s credibility determination. At bottom, we have ample reason to conclude that the AJ’s findings of fact and credibility determinations are adequately supported by the record.

To determine a reasonable penalty for employee misconduct, an agency must consider the relevant factors from Douglas v. Veterans Administration, 5 M.S.P.B. 313, 331-32 (Apr. 10, 1981). Malloy, 578 F.3d at 1356. The reviewing Board need not discuss every Douglas factor; it need only determine that the agency considered the factors relevant to the case at hand. Kumferman v. Dep’t of Navy, 785 F.2d 286, 291 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Here, West’s testimony indicates that he considered the relevant Douslas factors. West determined that the nature of Natty’s employment (a supervisor tasked with implementing EEO laws) aggravated the nature and seriousness of the offense (sex- and race-based remarks and conduct). West balanced this determination against Natty’s prior disciplinary record, his lengthy service, and mitigating factors in Natty’s personal life, and decided that Natty’s conduct precluded his continued employment as a supervisor.

Natty argues that a lesser penalty is warranted because he lacked notice that the conduct was inappropriate, the conduct was an isolated incident, and the penalty is more severe than penalties imposed on similarly situated employees. As detailed above, Natty’s prior EEO training put him on notice that such conduct was inappropriate. And while the pants dropping incident may have been an isolated event, the sex- and race-based comments were ongoing since 2009.

Natty cites several cases to demonstrate that his penalty is more severe than penalties imposed on other similarly situated employees. The AJ distinguished Natty from the lower level supervisors in these cases because Natty’s role as a manager carries a higher level of accountability. On appeal Natty cites additional cases in which the Board suspended but did not demote lower level supervisors. Like the cases considered by the AJ, these cases do not show that demotion of a higher level manager to a non-supervisory role is inappropriate.

The court was not swayed by Natty’s argument and affirmed the demotion.

full case from Leagle

22 thoughts on “Postal Manager’s Demotion for Dropping His Pants Upheld

  1. to Why Bother what are you getting from Natty to say that this idiot was dumb to do and say what he did then to try and fight demotion by using cases that atre irrelavant to his. You need to make sure you know the person because not every one is against him as you say be realistic. I hope he can afford you still because he got what he deserves. Oh by the way yes i do know the jerk and he is not what you describe so you must be getting what you want from him.

  2. I was just wondering, WTF you and your Korean friend doing during lunch time in your office. Every time you came out of that office you seem very happy.hmmmmmm

  3. This man likes to get into interracial relationship. First it was with an Asian, now it’s with a Latino man on tr1, who is taking care of him.

  4. Natty has had to fight his way to the top. He had to file an EEO just to become a 204b. He climbed the ladder rather fast after that. Obviously he had what it took to get there, but unfortunately not enough to stay there. I believe after he left the City of Inudstry PDC he had positions in Santa Clarita and Los Angeles PDC’s. It’s hard for bargining unit employees to agree with him being allowed to keep his job, when we would be FIRED on the spot!

  5. I never seen a black man who thinks his a Korean. This man would bs all the Korean’s at work. Being stationed in Korea does not make you a Korean. Remember when some of the clerks went to tr 1 and you let all your Korean friends stayed on tr3. You better hope that your girlfriend does not dump you or it’s just a matter of time now that she will dump you because I don’t think she likes a man who is making less than her. By the way how much did that piece of fake diamond ring you gave to you friend?

  6. I know Natty and he is a friend of mine. I will help get his job back for him. I still have connections

  7. He`s damn lucky to have kept his job…Period. Had he been a “Craft Employee”, they would have had their Letter of Removal, Upheld and he would be , as they say, “History”! At least that Fool got to keep his Job even with (his) demotion! What did attribute (his) pants dropping incident to? Major weight loss and had`nt had time to purchase smaller trousers? What a Jerk, he deserved to get Shit Canned, Case Closed!

  8. @why bother:::: why bother you idiot….I’m sure Nat-head is such a great person, what happened, was he just about to give you a promotion???

  9. agree with y ou lynda.. craft … fired.. management.. brought back.. i can name at least 6 cases in my office that that happened.. currently.. one is off about a year.. getting paid leave.. PAID…. she will be brought back i am sure.. like the rest of the scumbags…..yet.. several craft employees were guilty of unacceptable behavior… and closed… management protects management.. always did.. always will… … if its true this person was made a can you do this?? hiring freeze on full time employees??? is this guy now a pse??? bet not.. yet they find a spot for this guy.. like the one here…in my office… fired.. for misappropriation of postal funds.. off a year at least.. with pay..then brought back as a post master in a small office away from all the mess he created… nice…. then they wonder

  10. Im just curious to know if those of you who wrote these comments about Natty truly know him or are you just repeating the gossip you heard and added a few extra words!?! I have worked for Natty, and he is a very respectful person and very intelligent. The problem is as a MDO, you will employee who will dislike you because youll make them work. Just like the young lady who was fired and had the nerve to file an EEO against Natty for sexual harassment. She gets caught outside the work floor sleeping in her car while on the clock, gets AWOLed and runs to Natty. He tells her to get out of his face, she turns around and spreads the rumor that Natty was harassing her. As for the so-called witnesses, none of them like Natty, because he was their immediate MDO and he put a stop to their unauthorized Overtime, because they were milking the clock and were not gainfully employed. One of the witnesses was a 204B, Natty sat her down and she went back to craft which she kept the anger and went against her. Natty was no angel, but he is not the type of man to out his pants down, he’s quite intelligent then most management officials Only problem was Natty couldnt kept a lock on his mouth nor work with his higher officials. Natty wouldnt lie like West wanted him to do so it became personal. I believe West as the decision maker demoted him, because he was afraid Natty would blow his cover. Therefore, since West had a personal issue against Natty, getting fired was the scenario, but as a 10 point veteran, he became a part time flexible mailhandler. As a mailhandler Natty is a outstanding employee and till this day his friends in manager ask him for problem solving decisions and its a shame what happened to him. They could have lowered him to a EAS-17, made him a supervisor. He wasnt the first official in management who was accussef for inappropriate conduct and he sure isnt the last. Now in his position their’s a gentlemen who was witnessed doing inappropriate conduct on the work floor, but he moves to another plant because he didnt have a personal issue with his plant manager. I find it sad that Natty didnt win his case, but those of us who knows the games that are being played, know the Natty shouldnt have been demoted. But its okay those who placed their hand on the bible and testified nothing but lies will have to answer to God sooner or later.

  11. They are used to dropping their pants . What do you think they do after the carriers have left the office ? They have to do something on those 3 hour lunches . It’s not like they have enough brain cells to make a discision on their own . After their sex and liquid lunches .

  12. He never showed up for work as a mail handler. He was rehired at another station in another state where he found a job for one of his relitives. His inbred cousin Natty jr. hired him back as an EAS-23. So he only lost 1 spot. Hell he is already an EAS-25. Fuck up move up. Thats management.

  13. I bet he kept his seniority and the PO bought his house for the demotion because he moved more than 50 miles. He kept his parking spot and postal credit card to.

  14. If that would have been a craft employee they would have been fired? I don’t know all of the circumstances in any of the cases mentioned where Natty said he didn’t get the same punishment-lots of supervisors get switched to other offices after wrong doing. Again, if they were craft employees they would be fighting for their jobs while on LWOP.

Comments are closed.