Docket No. DCA 24-82

FINAL DECISION

The question before me is whether to enforce a Relocation Repayment Agreement provision that requires an employee to reimburse relocation expenses if the employee fails to complete a two-year assignment at the new location. Unlike many Debt Collection Act cases, the fundamental facts are not in dispute. Mr. Stall acknowledges that he signed the Relocation Repayment Agreement, and both parties agree that he did not fulfill the two-year commitment. Where the parties diverge is whether the Postal Service failed to deliver the new post as promised, or rather whether there was a “bait and switch” regarding the duties Mr. Stall was assigned at his new Postmaster position.
Postal Service employees who accept a promotion sometimes receive relocation benefits. Tr. 14. The relevant relocation policy is found in Handbook F-15-A Relocation Policy - Nonbargaining Executive and Administrative Schedule, Management and Technical Pay Band, and Attorney Compensation System Employees. Id. In addition to the benefits outlined in the policy, employees will generally execute a separate Relocation Repayment Agreement that spells out the employee’s responsibilities relative to any relocation expenses and reimbursement. Mr. Stall executed such an agreement on July 7, 2023. Resp. Exh. at 1–2. The agreement, as well as the Postal Service’s applicable policy, required Mr. Stall to complete two years at his new duty location. Id. Mr. Stall left his position in Michigan to report to his new position as Yuma, Colorado Postmaster (18B Postmaster) on August 12, 2023. Resp. Exh. at 8. In that position he reported to Post Office Operations Manager Steven Wheeler. Tr. 33. Mr. Stall voluntarily terminated that assignment on October 21, 2023, and started a new position in Michigan. Tr. 43– 44, 201. The Postal Service seeks $12,950.20, which represents Mr. Stall’s relocation expenses pro-rated to reflect the amount of time he spent in Yuma. Tr. 16–18, 28. Mr. Stall does not dispute the amount of the debt sought by the Postal Service.
At the hearing, I heard testimony from several witnesses familiar with Mr. Stall’s new position, including his former direct supervisor. The purpose of the testimony was to determine whether there was sufficient evidence that the Postal Service breached the implied terms of the Relocation Repayment Agreement (“agreement” or “contract”) relative to Mr. Stall’s new position. Mr. Stall’s argument is basically described as a breach of an implied condition. There is nothing in the contract that defines the duties of the Postmaster. In fact, the agreement does not even mention the position that Mr. Stall accepted. Thus, to accept Mr. Stall’s argument, I must find that implied in the agreement is that he would fulfill the role of Postmaster according to its terms, presumably as defined in Respondent’s Exhibits at 5. Tr. 35. Likewise, that his role would not exceed or violate the terms of its duties or description such to render the role inapplicable. See, e.g., Byrom v. United States Postal Service, DCA 14-269, 2015 WL 13647630 (March 26, 2015). In other words, did the Postal Service assign Mr. Stall responsibilities such that it was impossible for him to perform his duties as the Yuma Postmaster. If those responsibilities were materially inconsistent with his duties or otherwise interfered with Mr. Stall’s ability to perform his role as Postmaster and were so far afield of the expected role of an 18B Postmaster, then the Postal Service may have materially breached an implied condition of the contract. That factual hill is a difficult climb here.
Essentially, Mr. Stall argues that the additional duties placed on him by Mr. Wheeler were not voluntary, even though they were presented as such to him. Mr. Stall believed that if he failed to accept these additional duties, there would have been a negative impact on his future career with the Postal Service. Mr. Wheeler denies that any such coercion occurred and testified that he asked Mr. Stall to perform extra duties because Mr. Stall always said yes. In this case, however, Mr. Stall’s subjective belief that refusing to take on the additional responsibilities would be punished, is not borne out by the objective evidence in the record. I agree that on some level, Mr. Wheeler may have taken advantage of Mr. Stall’s newness to his position, and his willingness to try to be a team player for a new supervisor. But such actions do not rise to the level of coercive behavior necessary to establish a breach of contract. There was no evidence of threats made to Mr. Stall, either direct or implied, and there was no tangible evidence beyond Mr. Stall’s belief that his job or career would be endangered if he declined the additional duties. Also, none of the duties described were inconsistent with the needs of the Postal Service, nor were they beyond the expectations of postmasters in Mr. Stall’s position. Also, Mr. Stall never actually turned down any of the extra assignments. Mr. Wheeler insisted that Mr. Stall could have said no — and if he had done so — any negative impact on his career remains, at best, speculative. Tr. 157–161. Accordingly, I cannot find a material breach based on such speculation.
Ultimately, Mr. Stall decided it was best for his career to accept another opportunity back in Michigan. That decision was likely the correct one for Mr. Stall given his dissatisfaction with the Yuma Postmaster position. However, part of that decision involved the potential that he could be required to repay the relocation expenses. Sometimes we sacrifice one thing to gain an advantage elsewhere. Mr. Stall chose to leave Yuma and return to Michigan, and the consequences of that decision, both favorable and unfavorable, are his to bear.

ORDER

The Petition is DENIED. The Postal Service may collect the debt of $12,950.20 by administrative salary offset.