### The Honorable George F. Gunn, Jr., United States Distric t 1 

### Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. _____________ No. 95-1843EM

_____________ Eric Crawford, * * Appellant, * * On Appeal from the United v. * States District Court * for the Eastern District Marvin T. Runyon, Postmaster * of Missouri. General, United States Postal * Service, * * Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: March 21, 1996 Filed: April 1, 1996

___________ Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD, Chief Judge, WOLLMAN and BEAM, Circuit Judges.

___________ RICHARD S. ARNOLD, Chief Judge.

Er ic Crawford appeals the District Court's entry of judgment fo r 1 defendant following a bench trial in this action arising from his discharg e from the United States Postal Service. We affirm.
Crawford, a former Postal Service employee, alleged that the Postal Serv ice discriminated against him in violation of section 504 of th e Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794. Crawford

### -2-

claimed he was fired after his supervisors lied about alleged threats he had made to hurt or kill his acting immediate supervisor, as part of a campaig nto have him terminated because of his depression and stress

relate d mental disorders. After the District Court granted summar y judgment to defendant, we reversed on this claim, and remanded for a trial
. Crawford v. Runyon , 37 F.3d 1338, 1339, 1341 (8th Cir. 1994). Before trial, the District Court struck Crawford's demand for ajury, concluding that Crawford had no right to a jury trial. At the start of th e benchtrial, the parties agreed that the only issue before the court was whether Crawford made the threats; if he did, Crawford agreed defendant's reasons for firing hi m would not be pretextual. At the conclusion of the trial, the District Court found that Crawford had threatened hi s supervisors, and that defendant's reason for discharging Crawford was not pretextual.
We agree with the District Court that Crawford did not have a right to a jury trial, beca use defendant was sued in his official capacity as a representative of the United States. See 39 U.S.C. § 201 (Postal Service is part of "Government of the United States"); L oeffler v. Frank , 486 U.S. 549, 562 n.8 (1988) (when head of Postal Service acts in official capacity , he acts in name of Postal Service); Lehman v. Na kshian , 453 U.S. 156, 160- 61, 168 (1981) (Seventh Amendment right to jury trial does not appl y aga inst federal government, and plaintiff has right to jury trial "onl y where Congress has affirmatively and unambiguously granted that right by statute").
Given the parties' stipulation regarding pretext, only the District Co urt's factual findings on whether Crawford actually threatened hi s supe rvisors need be reviewed. The Court's findings were not clearl y erro neous. Each of three supervisors testified that he or she hear d Cra wford make a threatening statement directed towards his actin g supervisor on the relevant dates. Furthermore,

### -3-

Cra wford's own testimony shows that on each of these dates he mad e statements which were either directly threatening to his acting supervisor , or could reasonably be perceived as threatening to his acting supervisor or other supervisors.
Final ly, we deny Crawford's motion to supplement the record. Th e mat erial he offers is presented for impeachment only, which should hav e beendone at trial. See Dakota Indus., Inc. v. Dakota Sportswear, Inc. , 988 F.2d 61, 63 (8th Cir. 1993) (appellate court generally cannot consider evidence not in record below). Defendant's motions to strike and t o supplement the record are denied.
Affirmed.
A true copy.

Attest:
CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.