1-11-01, USPS could not collect $1,705.35 from a window clerk in NY for cashing a stolen U.S. Treasury check, the clerk followed check-cashing procedures.
http://www.usps.com/judicial/2001deci/dca00-421.htm

In the Matter of the Petition by	)  January 11, 2001
					)
EDDIE THOMAS				)
P.O. Box 312				)
					)
	at				)
					)
New York, NY 10014-0312			)  P.S. Docket No. DCA 00-421

APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER:		Shirley Thompson
					Bowling Green Post Office
					25 Broadway
					New York, NY  10004-9998

APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:		Valerie E. Rooks
					Labor Relations Specialist
					United States Postal Service
					James A. Farley Building
					421 8th Avenue, Room 3505
					New York, NY  10199-9401

FINAL DECISION UNDER THE DEBT COLLECTION ACT OF 1982

Petitioner, Eddie Thomas, filed a timely Petition after receiving an unsigned and undated Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets on October 25, 2000. This Notice stated the Postal Service's intention to withhold $1,705.35 from Petitioner's salary to recover for a shortage in his flexible credit account, caused by Petitioner cashing a forged check.

A hearing was held in New York City on December 19, 2000.¹  The Postal Service presented testimony from four supervisors and Petitioner testified in his own behalf. Both sides also relied on documents that had been filed with the Petition and the Answer. The following findings of fact are based on the entire record.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. At the time pertinent to this case, Petitioner had been a window clerk for approximately three and one-half years. In about August or September 1997, he moved from the Midtown Station to the Gracie Station, both in New York City. (Tr. 33, 51, 59).²

2. On December 20, 1995, the Postal Service finance office in New York City sent an e-mail message to all city post offices to alert them about a mail theft that resulted in many U.S. Treasury checks being stolen and later cashed at post offices using false identification. (Tr. 8-10; Answer, Ex. 3).

3. On January 7, 1997, two e-mail messages were sent from the finance office to all post offices, again alerting the offices about an increased number of forged, or altered, U.S. Treasury checks. The first of these messages directed that all U.S. Treasury checks must be approved by a supervisor before being cashed. (Tr. 10-12, 37, 82; Answer, Exs. 4 and 5).

4. The practice at Gracie Station when e-mails such as those described above arrived was for a supervisor, or someone on the administrative staff, to make copies and distribute them to all the clerks. At that time Gracie Station employed 18 clerks, about nine of whom worked at any given time. There are no available records to show which clerks actually received any specific e-mail message. There is no evidence as to how these e-mails were distributed at Midtown Station, where Petitioner was working at the time. (Tr. 15-17, 23-24, 37, 40, 52-53).

5. On November 3, 1997, Petitioner cashed a U.S. Treasury check at Gracie Station made out to payee Timothy V. Smith in the amount of $1,705.35. Petitioner did not obtain approval from a supervisor. The customer, who was not Timothy V. Smith, showed Petitioner an Armed Forces photo identification card and a New York City Hospital Corporation identification card in the name of Timothy Smith. The customer endorsed the check with the name Timothy Smith. Petitioner recorded the Armed Forces identification number and also noted the "Hosp. Corp." identification on the rear of the check. He turned in two Postal Service forms at the end of the day, showing that he had received a check for $1,705.35. (Tr. 18-20, 48, 50-51, 65-66, 73-74; Answer, Exs. 7, 8 and 9).

6. In February 1998, Timothy V. Smith filed a claim for the check he never received. Citibank, at which the Postal Service had deposited the check, issued Mr. Smith a new check and debited the Postal Service account in the amount of $1,705.35. (Answer, Exs. 7, 7A and 7B).

7. Postal Service Handbook F-1, Post Office Accounting Procedures (November 1996), contains the following pertinent provisions:

DECISION

Petitioner argues that the system for distributing e-mails and office policies at Gracie Station was far from foolproof, that he never saw any of the e-mails about Treasury checks, and that he was unaware of the requirement to have a supervisor approve Treasury checks. His position is that he followed the check-cashing procedures on which he had been trained, in accordance with the F-1 Handbook.

Respondent argues that the evidence is sufficient to show that Petitioner, an experienced clerk, had to have been aware of the problems with Treasury checks and the additional rule that a supervisor had to approve in order to cash a Treasury check. Respondent points to Petitioner's testimony that he thought he took the check to a supervisor for approval, although he could not remember for certain (Tr. 69, 78). Respondent argues that this testimony casts great doubt on Petitioner's credibility because there would have been no reason for him to seek approval if he did not know of the requirement.

The evidence shows that Petitioner acted in substantial compliance with the rules set out in the F-1 Handbook for cashing Treasury checks. In order to hold him liable on the basis of his failure to get a supervisor's approval, Respondent has the burden of proving that Petitioner was aware of this additional requirement. Respondent's evidence falls short of meeting that burden.

While there is some logic to Respondent's argument regarding Petitioner's credibility, I find that his testimony as to whether he showed the check to a supervisor was given with little thought in response to a question from his representative on re-direct examination, and was ambiguous. While that particular testimony was of doubtful credibility, I do not find it to be an admission that he knew of the requirement to have a supervisor approve the check.

The other evidence was not sufficient to show that Petitioner knew of the additional requirement. He did not arrive at Gracie Station for at least seven months after the January 1997 e-mail messages were received there, and there is no evidence to show that those messages were given to him after he began working there. Likewise, there is no evidence at all as to how these e-mail messages were received or distributed at his previous station. I cannot assume, simply because Petitioner was an experienced clerk, that he must have been aware of the new rule.

The Petition is sustained. Respondent may not collect $1,705.35 from Petitioner's salary.

					Bruce R. Houston
					Chief Administrative Law Judge

¹  The hearing was conducted by the undersigned Administrative Law Judge via speaker-telephone from Arlington, Virginia. All other participants, including the court reporter, were present in a conference room at the hearing site.

²  References to the hearing transcript are "Tr._." References to documents attached to Respondent's Answer and a Supplement to the Answer will be "Answer, Ex._."

Back to Olympia Heights PO