GovernmentExecutive.com

The Postal Service spent a year evaluating Damon Zarzeski's performance as a manager for the Postal Service in Tampa, Fla. When his year-long evaluation period was up, the agency gave Zarzeski a choice to either accept a position downgrade--to supervisor with no reduction in pay--or face possible disciplinary action.

Zarzeski was asked to sign a document admitting that he voluntarily accepted the agreement. But when he attempted to strike out the word "voluntarily" and write in "involuntarily," his manager told him he could only sign the document as it was drafted.

Zarzeski signed the agreement, but filed an appeal with the Merit Systems Protection Board alleging he was threatened and coerced into signing the agreement. An administrative judge dismissed his appeal finding that it had no jurisdiction over the issue and the full Board denied his petition for review for the same reason.

Zarzeski then took his case to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, which dismissed his appeal because he did not prove that his reassignment was involuntary, an issue that would have given the Board jurisdiction over the case.

"Zarzeski signed an agreement stating that he voluntarily accepted the transfer. We must presume, therefore, that he transferred voluntarily," the court decision said. "Zarzeski had an alternative, the fact that neither alternative was completely satisfactory did not make his choice involuntary."

Damon Zarzeski v. U.S. Postal Service, U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Doc. # 01-3333, March 5, 2002.

Compelling Reasons

When the Interior Department transferred Paula Fowler from Oregon to Arizona in June 1999, the government told her it would pay her travel and relocation costs.

Fowler, who lived in her motor home instead of government housing while she searched for a permanent residence, asked the agency to reimburse her more than $7,000 in temporary living expenses and storage costs. Since Fowler declined to reside in temporary government housing, the agency agreed to pay her living expenses for thirty days, later extending the authorization to sixty days when Fowler failed to find a permanent home. The government paid for the storage of Fowler's household goods for ninety days.

By September 1999, Fowler still had not moved into a permanent home, so she asked the government to pay her living expenses and storage costs for an additional thirty days each. But an agency official believed Fowler had lived on the government's dime long enough and rejected her request.

The Board of Contract Appeals decided in favor of the Interior Department, referring to Federal Travel Regulation provisions, which say agencies can extend authorization for temporary living expenses past sixty days and storage costs past ninety days at their discretion and only for "compelling reasons." Compelling reasons include sudden illness, death, acts of God and other serious unforeseen problems that prevent the employee from moving into a permanent residence after sixty days or taking goods out of storage after ninety days.

According to the Board, the agency was justified in rejecting Fowler's request because it did not fit the criteria for "compelling." Fowler said she was in the middle of negotiations on the price of her home, but failed to provide any evidence that the delay was beyond her control, the board said.

"The agency understandably expected Ms. Fowler to pursue her search for permanent quarters on an expedited basis since, if she had accepted the initial offer of government housing in lieu of permanent quarters, the need for temporary quarters would have been minimal or nonexistent," the board said.

In the Matter of Paula K. Fowler, Board of Contract Appeals, General Services Administration (GSBCA 15670-RELO), March 26, 2002.