GovernmentExecutive.com

Stephen Castleman, a mail handler in Springfield, Ill., was fired after he was caught drinking alcohol and smoking marijuana in the workplace. During an investigation of the incident, Castleman admitted to the plant manager that he had used alcohol and marijuana while at work for at least two years, but had never told management that he had a drug addiction problem. During those two years, Castleman got several awards for good performance and had a good attendance record--but no record of substance abuse treatment.

After Castleman was fired, he was admitted to a drug and alcohol rehabilitation program and filed a grievance with the Postal Service. On Aug. 28, 1995, an arbitrator upheld management's decision to fire Castleman. Believing he was a victim of discrimination because he was white and had a disability (drug addiction), Castleman filed a formal EEO complaint on March 3, 1996. In its final decision, the Postal Service said that Castleman was not fired because he was addicted to alcohol and marijuana, but fired for using alcohol and marijuana in the workplace. Castleman also did not prove he had a disability based upon the requirements set by the 1973 Rehabilitation Act.

Castleman appealed the agency's decision, but the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission upheld the agency's original decision.

Stephen Castleman v. Postal Service, EEOC #01994009, Feb. 6, 2002.

Gas, Food, No Lodging

Army Corps of Engineers employee Peter W. Frick drove home to Indiana on the weekends when he was on temporary assignment in Cincinnati for nearly four months last year.

Frick paid $69 each day for his hotel room in Cincinnati, spending $759 for the 11 nights he kept the room while he was at home. An employee in the agency's finance office told Frick the government would reimburse him for lodging at the hotel on weekends, based on the false assumption that Frick was receiving a reduced rate because of a long-term lodging arrangement he had made with the proprietors.

Basing its decision on the Joint Travel Regulation, the agency denied Frick's lodging reimbursement claim for the days he spent in Indiana. The regulation allows the government to reimburse employees who return home from their temporary duty stations on weekends for mileage and per diem costs, but not for lodging costs.

The Board of Contract Appeals upheld the agency's decision to deny Frick lodging reimbursement for the days he spent at home. The board also said the finance employee had wrongly interpreted which long-term lodging reimbursements could be reimbursed.

In any event, Frick rented his accommodations on a daily basis and did not have a long-term arrangement with the hotel. But even if he was renting on a long-term basis, the misinformation from the finance employee did not work in Frick's favor, according to the decision. "The erroneous advice claimant received from agency officials does not entitle claimant to reimbursement," the board said.

In the Matter of Peter W. Frick, General Services Administration Board of Contract Appeals ( GSBCA 15676-TRAV), Feb. 6, 2002