Unpublished Dispositionjoe D. Jordan, Petitioner, v. United States Postal Service, Respondent, 824 F.2d 978 (Fed. Cir. 1987)

Annotate this Case
US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit - 824 F.2d 978 (Fed. Cir. 1987) May 19, 1987

Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, BENNETT, Senior Circuit Judge, and SMITH, Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM.


DECISION

Petitioner appeals his demotion and reassignment by the United States Postal Service, which were upheld by a final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board on July 23, 1986, Docket No. PH07528610130, when it declined review of the presiding official's decision of March 18, 1986. We affirm.

OPINION

Effective November 23, 1985, petitioner was demoted from his position as postmaster, South Hill, Virginia, to that of distribution clerk and was reassigned to the Petersburg, Virginia, postal facility. The agency action brought against him was based on several specifications of sexual harassment of employees at the post office and conduct unbecoming a postal employee. After a hearing, the presiding official held that the misconduct charged in the majority of specifications was sustained by a preponderance of the evidence and that petitioner's demotion and reassignment were warranted to promote the efficiency of the service. 5 U.S.C. § 7513 (1982). In reaching this decision, the presiding official made credibility determinations which must be sustained on the record before the court. None of the defenses was found sufficient to mitigate the penalty imposed. We have reexamined those defenses, which are treated in detail in the board's opinion, and find no demonstrable prejudicial errors in the proceeding. Our scope of review is limited. Petitioner has not met his burden of showing that the action taken against him was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, not supported by substantial evidence, or otherwise not according to law. 5 U.S.C. § 7703(c) (1982). See Hayes v. Department of the Navy, 727 F.2d 1535 (Fed. Cir. 1984).

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.