Search:

Custom Search

Knowing When to Quit While Ahead

By Susan Smith

Friday, February 1, 2008

You can have daily headlines from FedSmith.com delivered right to your desktop each business morning. The service is free and you don't get junk e-mail as the price of your subscription. Just visit our newsletter page to sign up!

A FedSmith.com reader brought a recent unpublished federal appeals court decision to our attention that illustrates why a federal employee claiming discrimination needs to fully understand the consequences before taking the complaint to court.

In this case the employee won her administrative case to the tune of a $40,000 damage payment, but now has to pay it back because she lost a subsequent court challenge based on the same discrimination claims.

The case is Hodge v, Potter, C.A.5thCir. No. 06-31243 (unpublished), 12/6/07.

Ms. Hodge, a Postal Service customer relations coordinator, filed an administrative complaint charging the Postal Service with sex discrimination. Following a hearing, the administrative judge found in favor of Hodge on her sexual harassment claim and awarded her $40,000 in compensatory damages. The USPS issued a check in that amount to Hodge. (Opinion pp. 1-2)

Presumably not satisfied with this result, Hodge filed suit against her agency in the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, based on the same discrimination charge and on a claim of retaliation. The agency counterclaimed asking the court to order Hodge to pay back the $40,000. (p. 2)

Unfortunately for Hodge, the district court threw her case out when it granted summary judgment to the government, finding that there was no genuine issue of material fact with regard to her sex discrimination and retaliation claims. The court then asked the parties for briefs on the government's counterclaim, but Hodge did not submit one. The court granted the government's claim, ordering Hodge to repay the $40,000. (p. 2)

Following this bad day in court, Hodge took her case to the Fifth Circuit. But she has now had another bad day in court. The appeals court has sustained the district court's rulings and Hodge still must repay the $40,000 she won at the administrative level.

Without getting into the unfortunate happenstance that Hodge briefed the wrong issue in trying to challenge the summary judgment part of the district court's order, we found the court's ruling on the government's counterclaim much more interesting.

In invoking her right to file her discrimination claim in the district court, Hodge was starting the case over for all intents and purposes. She had the right to a trial "de novo" as the lawyers call it. The appeals court explains: "[W]hen a federal employee comes to court to challenge, in whole or in part, the administrative disposition of his or her discrimination claims, the court must consider those claims de novo, and is not bound by the results of the administrative process...[B]y seeking de novo review in district court, Hodge incurred the risk of losing on the merits, which is precisely what happened." (p. 5; citations omitted)

© 2008 FedSmith Inc. All rights reserved. This article may not be reproduced without express written consent of FedSmith Inc.

Add a Comment about this Article

** All fields are required.
Note: Your comments will not show up right away. FedSmith.com selects the most insightful comments from our readers for posting. If selected, your comments will show up in the comments section after they have been reviewed and approved. See our terms of use for more information.

Readers' Comments

  • She is not only greedy but dumb for hiring that lawyer! Does the below statement also apply to other employment situations where a disposition has been issued or is it strictly with discrimination claims? [W]hen a federal employee comes to court to challenge, in whole or in part, the administr...
    Posted: February 12, 2008 11:15 AM
  • The burden of proof is different. Under the Federal system, all one has to have is a preponderance of evidence. This is a much lower standard that "beyond a reasonable doubt". The point - if you win at the agency level, take your money and be happy....
    Posted: February 4, 2008 4:19 PM
  • you are so right.i was assaulted by my supervisor and the cmo of our clinic with witnesses to both events.a conspiracy ensued to suppress knowledge of their misconduct.how can actual ,witnessed assault not be discriminatory? your workplace safety is gone and believe me when i say that it changes yo...
    Posted: February 4, 2008 12:28 PM

View All Comments »

 HTML  Text

MORE BY SUSAN SMITH

More »