Docket No. AO 23-58

INITIAL DECISION

The United States Postal Service seeks to collect 946.83 hours of overtime paid to Linda McLean over a 26-month period. A hearing was held with both parties present by videoconferencing. The Postal Service did not meet its burden of proof because it failed to present sufficient evidence to support its demand for the repayment of the overtime. The petition is granted.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. From April 11, 2020, to her retirement on November 1, 2022, Ms. McLean was the postmaster in Raymond, Maine (Tr. 97). ¹
2. From pay period 20 of 2020 to pay period 23 of 2022, which was from September 12, 2020, to November 4, 2022, Ms. McLean was paid as a Level 18, non-exempt employee, and thus, entitled to overtime. She was paid for 946.63 hours of overtime during the relevant time period. (Resp. Exh. 1 at 8; Tr. 29-31).
3. On January 4, 2023, the Postal Service issued Invoice No. 703376550, which referenced a PS Form 50 with an effective date of September 12, 2020.² According to the invoice, the PS Form 50 changed Ms. McLean’s position to a Level 43, exempt status for the 26- month period at issue, which would make her ineligible for overtime. (Resp. Exh. 1 at 8; Tr. 29- 31).
4. The January 4, 2023 invoice was for $57,151.81, which included adjustments for the change in salary and the repayment of 946.63 hours of overtime previously paid to Ms. McLean (Resp. Exh. 1 at 8; Tr. 29-32, 127-29).

DECISION

A non-exempt employee is not exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act and is paid for overtime, and an exempt employee is not paid for overtime. Employee and Labor Relations Manual (ELM) § 434.1. The Postal Service argued that it retroactively changed Ms. McLean from a non-exempt employee to an exempt employee and seeks repayment of 946.63 hours of overtime.
The Postal Service bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that (1) it made an overpayment, (2) it properly calculated the amount, and (3) Ms. McLean was not entitled to the overpayment. Lofton v. United States Postal Service, AO 13-313, 2018 WL 1606049, at *2 (Mar. 29, 2018) (remanded on other grounds); Cleaver v. United States Postal Service, AO 22-56, 2022 WL 16836195, at *1 (Oct. 28, 2022). The Postal Service did not meet its burden of proof because it failed to present a PS Form 50 changing Ms. McLean’s position effective September 12, 2020. The invoice alone was not sufficient proof that the overtime was an overpayment or that the amount should have been calculated retroactive to September 12, 2020.
The Postal Service’s only witness in its case-in-chief was a supervisor in the Payroll Department who could not explain Ms. McLean’s position being retroactively changed, beyond what was stated in the invoice (Tr. 24-25, 31-32, 58-63). Ms. McLean called her post office operations manager as a witness, and he also had no knowledge of the retroactive change (Tr. 82- 84, 87-89, 93-94).
The January 4, 2023 invoice referenced a PS Form 50 with an effective date of September 12, 2020 (Resp. Exh. 1 at 8; Tr. 29-31). However, the referenced PS Form 50 was not in the record. There was not any PS Form 50 in the record that either changed Ms. McLean’s position or that had an effective date of September 12, 2020.³  There is not sufficient evidence that the Postal Service properly changed her position effective September 12, 2020.
The Postal Service did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the overtime was an overpayment or that the amount should have been calculated retroactive to September 12, 2020. It thus did not prove that she was overpaid. She is entitled to judgment in her favor.

ORDER

The petition is GRANTED. The debt of $57,151.81 is INVALIDATED. The Postal Service may not collect the debt by involuntary administrative offset.