Postal and Federal Disability Retirement: Letting Go

In preparing, formulating and filing a Federal Disability Retirement under FERS or CSRS, it is often normal to have concurrent “cases” filed — an appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board in response to an adverse action or termination by the Agency; an EEOC case proceeding against the Agency; and other judicial and quasi-judicial forums.

At some critical point, however, there comes a time when a decision must be made — a bifurcation, an “either/or”:  Either one wants to continue litigating to get one’s job back, or the preparation of the Federal Disability Retirement application under FERS or CSRS, as an admission that one is no longer able to perform one or more of the essential elements of one’s job, must proceed.  But not both.  

For the most part, concurrent judicial proceedings can continue without a conflict between the two.  Lawyers can talk out of both sides of the mouth, and beyond — sometimes out of three or four sides of the mouth.  It is well that an attorney’s mouth is circular and not triangular, thereby failing to restrict and contain how many sides there are.  

Given that, however, there often comes a time when a Federal or Postal employee cannot credibly state that the Agency had no right to terminate one’s employment, yet claim with the Office of Personnel Management that one can no longer perform one or more of the essential elements of one’s job.  

Indeed, as a practical matter, it is often a good negotiating point — of persuading the agency that the Federal or Postal employee will be willing to drop the adversarial proceedings in return for the Agency restating the basis of the removal, based upon one’s medical inability to perform the essential elements of one’s job.  Furthermore, it is often a pragmatic “health reason” — to let go of the adversarial proceedings, and allow for a Federal Disability Retirement application to get approved, so that one may begin the process of recuperating one’s health.  Just some thoughts.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire