P.S. Docket No. AO 21-551

DISMISSAL

This matter involves a claim of debt of $1,000 fees that Respondent seeks as repayment of what it contends was an error by Petitioner in the issuance of a money order.

On February 14, 2022, I issued an Order for the Postal Service to address two legal issues before we could proceed on the Petition.  The first was what legal basis the Postal Service could cite to seek the repayment considering McGee v. United States Postal Service, 2016 WL 10572245, DCA 16-184 (November 14, 2016).  The second was whether the Postal Service had an obligation to mitigate its damages prior to seeking collection from Petitioner considering Paulette Kendrick, 2008 WL 11383919, DCA 08-82 (June 12, 2008) and cases cited therein.

The Postal Service responded by citing to Article 28 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement between the American Postal Workers AFL-CIO and the Postal Service which states:

Employees who are assigned fixed credits or vending credits shall be strictly accountable for the amount of the credit. If any shortage occurs, the employee shall be financially liable unless the employee exercises reasonable care in the performance of his/her duties.

However, the Postal Service was unable to provide any evidence of its efforts to mitigate damages in this case.  “The principle that the Postal Service must attempt to mitigate its damages before collecting a debt from an employee is well established. Javier A. Ybarra, 2008 WL 11383900, DCA 07-429 (April 29, 2008); Darrell Kirby, 2003 WL 27380818, DCA 02-498 (April 14, 2003); Michael A. Martin, 2000 WL 36731123, DCA 00-78 (May 17, 2000); Rita M. Ballard, 1992 WL 12936244, DCA-134 (June 9, 1992); Paul E. Logan, 1991 WL 12010563, DCA-105 (September 10, 1991); Coral S. Vellocido, 1989 WL 1843896, DCA-47 (September 19, 1989).” Paulette Kendrick, 2008 WL 11383919, DCA 08-82 (June 12, 2008)(Westlaw citations added). 

In this case, the Postal Service did not dispute Petitioner’s allegations that the customer who received the money orders maintains a post office box at the same post office where the transaction occurred; that the Postal Service has the telephone number of the customer; and, that the customer was a person familiar to the Postal Service in this area.  In order to collect a debt under the Debt Collection Act, the Postal Service must make reasonable efforts to mitigate its damages.  Here, there is no evidence that the Postal Service has done so.  Until it makes a reasonable effort to do so, the collection of this debt is at best premature.  As I have not reached the merits of the Petition, the dismissal of the Petition is without prejudice to the Postal Service to pursue the debt when it has complied with its duty to mitigate, should it choose to do so.

ORDER

The Petition is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.  The Postal Service may not collect the debt by administrative offset at this time.