Docket No. DCA 24-134

FINAL DECISION

The relevant facts in this petition are undisputed. Petitioner, Sandra Hernandez, worked for the Postal Service at the Midtown Post Office in New York City. On October 13, 2023, she was assigned to collect, count, and prepare the daily receipts from the window tellers for deposit the next day. At the end of the day on October 13, there was a cash shortage of $2,200. Based on that shortage, in February 2024, the Postal Service issued a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offset under the Debt Collection Act to Ms. Hernandez. This petition followed.

In a June 13, 2024, telephone conference with the parties, I asked the Postal Service to identify the specific provision in the Postal Service’s regulations that allows it to hold Ms. Hernandez financially accountable for the shortage. During the hearing, I again reminded the Postal Service of its obligation to prove accountability by reference to a regulation. Despite those reminders, the Postal Service never explained the legal basis for holding Ms. Hernandez accountable for the shortage.

As Petitioner’s representative pointed out, we have consistently held that “[t]he imposition of personal financial liability on a postal employee must be based on specific legal authority.” Roberts v. United States Postal Service, DCA 20-247, 2022 WL 2045798 (May 3, 2022); Brown v. United States Postal Service, DCA 16-224, 2017 WL 5516571 (January 25, 2017). There are, however, two exceptions to that general rule. First, financial liability may be imposed if an employee personally benefited from a loss. McGee v. United States Postal Service, DCA 16-184, 2016 WL 10572245 (November 14, 2016). Second, financial liability may be imposed if a specific act of malfeasance or negligence directly caused a loss. See Joseph Messett, AO 09-15 (I.D. October 9, 2009); Albertha Johnson, DCA 04-71 (August 23, 2004). I therefore examine whether Ms. Hernandez’s behavior in October 2023 falls into either of those categories.

As to the first category, the Postal Service conceded that it is not alleging that Ms. Hernandez stole the money underlying the shortage (Tr. at 12). There are also no other facts in the record suggesting that Ms. Hernandez personally benefited from the shortage in any other way. As to the second category, the Postal Service has not shown that there was any specific act of malfeasance or negligence that caused the shortage. The shortage underlying the alleged debt has not been explained in any meaningful way by either party. Simply put, neither party, but especially the Postal Service, can explain how the shortage occurred.

Thus, Ms. Hernandez does not fit within either of the exceptions to the general rule discussed above. The Postal Service cannot hold her financially accountable for the shortage.

ORDER

The petition is granted. The Postal Service may not collect the debt underlying this petition by involuntary administrative salary offset.