United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

C.F., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Chicago, IL, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 20-1070

Issued: August 9, 2023

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

DECISION AND ORDER

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

JURISDICTION

On April 20, 2020 appellant filed a timely appeal from a March 24, 2020 merit decision of 

the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). Pursuant to the Federal Employees’

Compensation Act1(FECA) and 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3, the Board has jurisdiction over 

the merits of this case.

ISSUE

The issue is whether appellant has met her burden of proof to establish stress-related 

conditions in the performance of duty, as alleged.

FACTUAL HISTORY

On February 19, 2020 appellant, then a 53-year-old retail associate, filed an occupational 

disease claim (Form CA-2) alleging that due to factors of her federal employment, including a 

February 3, 2020 incident with customers. She asserted that she felt unsafe at work after receiving 

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.
2

verbal threats, resulting in stress-related headaches, backaches, and dizziness. Appellant also 

alleged that she was overworked and harassed by management. She noted that she first became 

aware of her condition and realized its relation to her federal employment on February 6, 2020. 

On the reverse side of the claim form, J.M., an employing establishment human resources 

specialist, indicated that on February 3, 2020 a customer complained about the way appellant had 

treated non-English speaking customers and posted her account of the incident on social media. 

She noted that appellant had filed a complaint with the U.S. Postal Inspection Service, which then 

performed an investigation regarding the customer’s conduct, but found no credible threat. 

Appellant stopped work on February 18, 2020.

In a development letter dated February 19, 2020, OWCP informed appellant that the 

evidence of record was insufficient to establish her claim. It advised her of the type of factual and 

medical evidence necessary to establish her claim and provided a questionnaire for completion. In 

a separate development letter of even date, OWCP requested that the employing establishment 

provide details related to appellant’s claim and indicate whether they concurred with her 

allegations. OWCP afforded both parties 30 days to respond.

Appellant alleged that management improperly denied her requests for leave. She also 

submitted an October 30, 2019 leave request for two hours on October 31, 2019, which was denied 

pending acceptable documentation. Appellant also submitted a leave request dated February 4, 

2020, where she remarked “unsafe work environment -- customer threats,” which was also denied. 

Appellant asserted that her manager discriminated against her based on her age and sex. 

She submitted a November 11, 2019 letter from the employing establishment Equal Employment 

Opportunity (EEO)field office acknowledging receipt of herinformal complaint of discrimination 

based on age and sex. The letter detailed an incident that occurred on October 24, 2019 when 

appellant’s manager allegedly showed favoritism and embarrassed and demeaned her in front of 

younger employees.

In a February 12, 2020 statement, appellant alleged that she was being punished for 

carrying out the policies and procedures for which she was trained. She indicated that when she 

was hired, she was only required to speak English. Appellant reported that she attempted to help 

a non-English speaking customer and asked if others in line could interpret for her. As a result,

she was criticized, defamed, verbally assaulted, and slandered, and her job and life were 

threatened. 

In an e-mail dated February 5, 2020, appellant reported that, a disgruntled customer, E.G., 

threatened her on February 3, 2020. She alleged that E.G. called her a derogatory slur accused her 

of disliking Latinos, and contacted the news media and community at large who threatened her 

and protested outside her workplace. 

On February 12, 2020 K.B., the station manager, performed an investigative interview

relative to the customer-related incident that occurred on February 3, 2020. Appellant provided 

partially legible responses to a series of questions. She reported working for the employing 

establishment for 32 years. Appellant indicated that she received training for her position and 

treated everyone with respect. She noted that on February 3, 2020 she was threatened by a patron. 

Appellant indicated that there was no protocol at the station for servicing a customer who did not 

speak English. She indicated that on the day in question she tried helping a lady and asked other 
3

customers in line to assist when another customer was disrespectful. Appellant asserted that she 

was the only one at the window every morning and asked for assistance, but was never provided 

help. 

Appellant submitted a statement dated February 19, 2020, noting that she began working 

at the employing establishment facility on July 22, 2019. She indicated that on February 3, 2020 

she was threatened by a disgruntled customer and feared that the employing establishment was 

trying to terminate her as a result of this incident. After the incident, management interrogated 

appellant and tarnished her character. In a statement dated February 20, 2020, appellant explained 

that on February 3, 2020 she provided service to a non-English speakingcustomer and asked others 

in line to help interpret for the woman. She asserted that she did not berate or discriminate against 

any customers.

In a witness statement dated February 5, 2020, received by OWCP on February 28, 2020, 

L.R., a coworker, reported that on February 3, 2020 appellant was at the finance window by herself 

and she overheard appellant saying to a customer: “I am sorry for the delay, but I do not speak 

Spanish, you are going to have to get someone to help you.” She further related that appellant 

stated: “ma’am I do not appreciate you coming in here and being disrespectful. I am not a 

disrespectful person. I have not disrespected anyone, and I am not going to allow you to disrespect 

me, if you keep on I am going to have to call the police and have you escorted out and you will 

not be allowed to enter the building again.” L.R. believed that there was a managerial problem 

and the station needed a bilingual speaking supervisor to better assist the customers. In an 

amended statement dated February 5, 2020, L.R. asserted that appellant did nothing wrong and 

that management disliked her because she had previously reported wrongdoing that occurred at 

the station.

In a statement dated February 20, 2020, appellant indicated that she developed anxiety as 

a result of the February 3, 2020 incident and feared physical harm. Likewise, in a statement 

received on March 2, 2020, she indicated that she was the only clerk present from 9:00 a.m. to 

10:10 a.m. and requested additional assistance daily. 

OWCP continued to receive medical evidence. 

On March 2, 2020 OWCP received appellant’s February 25, 2020 response to its 

development letter. Appellant indicated that her stress-related condition developed on February 3, 

2020 after a customer verbally threatened her, disrespected her, and called her a derogatory slur. 

She explained that on February 4 and 5, 2020 she experienced anxiety and feared physical harm. 

Appellant requested emergency leave from February 6 through 11, 2020. She reported no stress 

in her personal or home life and that she had been happily married for 26 years.

On March 3, 2020 K.B. responded to OWCP’s development letter on behalf of the 

employing establishment. He contended that there was no evidence that appellant was threatened 

on February 3, 2020. L.R., appellant’s co-worker, provided a statement and indicated that she 

never heard anyone threaten or use profanity; rather, appellant informed a customer that she was 

being rude and she was going to call the police. An investigation by the U.S. Postal Inspec tion 

Service found no credible threat. K.B. also noted that, after the February 3, 2020 incident, the 

employing establishment accommodated appellant by giving her duties that did not require her to 

work with the public. K.B. provided a job description for a lead sales and service associate whose
4

functional purpose was to perform a variety of sales and customer support services for products 

with or without direct supervision, alone or as a working leader.

On March 6, 2020 OWCP received an Assault and Threat Specialty Report relating to an 

incident involving appellant, who was identified as the lead clerk at the employing establishment. 

Inspector D.M. interviewed appellant, who indicated that on February 3, 2020 a customer at her 

window was trying to get a passport photo, but did not speak English. Appellant reportedly asked 

other customers for assistance with translating the conversation. She described a woman who,

after attempting to assist the customer without success, called appellant names. Appellant 

indicated that on February 4, 2020 news media outlets entered the workplace and tried to interview 

her regarding the incident. Inspector D.M found that no direct threats of violence were made 

against appellant, only name calling. 

OWCP received medical evidence.

By decision dated March 24, 2020, OWCP denied appellant’s emotional condition claim,

finding that she failed to establish a compensable employment factor. 

LEGAL PRECEDENT

An employee seeking benefits under FECA2 has the burden of proof to establish the 

essential elements of his or her claim, including the fact that the individual is an employee of the 

United States within the meaning of FECA, that the claim was filed within the applicable time 

limitation, that an injury was sustained while in the performance of duty as alleged, and that any 

disability or specific condition for which compensation is claimed is causally related to the 

employment injury.3 These are the essential elements of each and every compensation claim 

regardless of whether the claim is predicated on a traumatic injury or an occupational disease. 4

To establish an emotional condition in the performance of duty, a claimant must submit: 

(1) factual evidence identifying an employment factor or incident alleged to have caused or 

contributed to his or her claimed emotional condition; (2) rationalized medical evidence 

establishing that he or she has a diagnosed emotional or psychiatric disorder; and (3) rationalized 

medical opinion evidence establishing that the accepted compensable employment factors are 

causally related to the diagnosed emotional condition.5

Workers’ compensation law does not apply to each and every injury or illness that is 

somehow related to an employee’s employment.6 There are situations where an injury or an illness 

2

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.

3 A.J., Docket No. 18-1116 (issued January 23, 2019); Gary J. Watling, 52 ECAB 278 (2001).

4

20 C.F.R. § 10.115(e); M.K., Docket No. 18-1623 (issued April10, 2019); see T.O., Docket No. 18-1012 (issued 

October 29, 2018); see Michael E. Smith, 50 ECAB 313 (1999).

5

See S.K., Docket No. 18-1648 (issued March 14, 2019); M.C., Docket No. 14-1456 (issued December 24, 2014); 

Debbie J. Hobbs, 43 ECAB 135 (1991); Donna Faye Cardwell, 41 ECAB 730 (1990).

6 T.G., Docket No. 19-0071 (issued May 28, 2019); L.D., 58 ECAB 344 (2007); Robert Breeden, 57 ECAB 

622 (2006).
5

has some connection with the employment, but nevertheless does not come within the concept or 

coverage of workers’ compensation. Where the disability results from an employee’s emotional 

reaction to his or her regular or specially assigned duties or to a requirement imposed by the 

employment, the disability comes within the coverage of FECA.7 On the other hand, the disability 

is not covered when it results from such factors as an employee’s fear of a reduction-in-force or 

his or her frustration from not being permitted to work in a particular environment or to hold a 

particular position.8

Administrative and personnel matters, although generally related to the employee’s 

employment, are administrative functions of the employer rather than the regular or specially 

assigned work duties of the employee and are not covered under FECA. 9 However, the Board has 

held that where the evidence establishes error or abuse on the part of the employing establishment 

in what would otherwise be an administrative matter, coverage will be afforded. 10 In determining 

whether the employing establishment has erred or acted abusively, the Board will examine the 

factual evidence of record to determine whether the employing establishment acted reasonably.11

For harassment or discrimination to give rise to a compensable disability under FECA, 

there must be probative and reliable evidence that harassment or discrimination did in fact occur. 12 

Mere perceptions of harassment, retaliation, or discrimination are not compensable under FECA.13

In cases involving emotional conditions, the Board has held that, when working conditions 

are alleged as factors in causing a condition or disability, OWCP, as part of its adjudicatory 

function, must make findings of fact regarding which working conditions are deemed compensable 

factors of employment and are to be considered by a physician when providing an opinion on 

causal relationship and which working conditions are not deemed compensable factors of 

employment and may not be considered.14 If an employee does implicate a factor of employment, 

OWCP should then determine whether the evidence of record substantiates that factor. As a rule, 

allegations alone by a claimant are insufficient to establish a factual basis for an emotional 

condition claim. The claim must be supported by probative evidence.15 If a compensable factor 

7 L.H., Docket No. 18-1217 (issued May 3, 2019); Trudy A. Scott, 52 ECAB 309 (2001); Lillian Cutler, 28 ECAB 

125 (1976).

8 A.E., Docket No. 18-1587 (issued March 13, 2019); Gregorio E. Conde, 52 ECAB 410 (2001).

9

See G.R., Docket No. 18-0893 (issued November 21, 2018); AndrewJ. Sheppard, 53 ECAB 170-71 (2001), 

52 ECAB 421 (2001); Thomas D. McEuen, 41 ECAB 387 (1990), reaff’d on recon., 42 ECAB 556 (1991).

10 See O.G., Docket No. 18-0359 (issued August 7, 2019); D.R., Docket No. 16-0605 (issued October 17, 2016); 

William H. Fortner, 49 ECAB 324 (1998).

11 B.S., Docket No. 19-0378 (issued July 10, 2019); Ruth S. Johnson, 46 ECAB 237 (1994).

12 T.G., Docket No. 19-0071 (issued May 28, 2019); Marlon Vera, 54 ECAB 834 (2003).

13 Id.; see also Kim Nguyen, 53 ECAB 127 (2001).

14 Dennis J. Balogh, 52 ECAB 232 (2001).

15 Charles E. McAndrews, 55 ECAB 711 (2004).
6

of employment is substantiated, OWCP must base its decision on an analysis of the medical 

evidence which has been submitted.16

ANALYSIS

The Board finds that this case is not in posture for decision.

Appellant attributed her emotional condition, in part, to Cutler17 factors. She alleged that 

her stress-related condition developed on February 3, 2020 after a confrontation with angry 

customers while performing her clerk duties. Pursuant to Cutler, an allegation constitutes a

compensable employment factor if the appellant establishes that performance of his or her regular 

job duties or special assignment caused or contributed to an emotional condition. 

OWCP received a witness statement from L.R., a coworker, dated February 5, 2020, who 

confirmed that on February 3, 2020 appellant was performing her clerk duties, addressing the 

complaints of angry customers. 

The Board has held that conditions related to stress from situations in which an employee 

was performing her regular or specially assigned duties is compensable. 18 The evidence of record 

is sufficient to establish that appellant interacted with angry customers while performing her 

regular assigned duties. The verbal altercation combined with the attention of local news media 

outlets about the incident constitutes a compensable work factor. The employing establishment 

did not dispute that appellant interacted with an angry customer while performing her job duties, 

nor did they dispute the ensuing events. The Board thus finds that under Cutler,

19 appellant has 

established a compensable work factor.

The Board further finds that appellant’s other allegations do not constitute compensable 

factors of employment.

Appellant also attributed her emotional condition, to being overworked and working in an 

understaffed environment on a daily basis as a window clerk. She contended that she was the only 

clerk present at the customer service window from approximately 9:00 a.m. to 10:10 a.m., Monday 

through Friday, and there were sometimes as many as nine customers in line. She requested 

additional help from M.B. on several occasions and he never provided assistance. Appellant 

related that her current work environment caused her stress and anxiety.

The Board has held that overwork, when substantiated by sufficient factual information to 

corroborate appellant’s account of events, may be a compensable factor of employment. 20 In 

16 Norma L. Blank, 43 ECAB 384, 389-90 (1992).

17 Supra note 10. 

18 Id.

19 A.C., Docket No. 18-0507 (issued November 26, 2018);Pamela D. Casey, 57 ECAB 260, 263 (2005); Lillian 

Cutler, supra note 10.

20 See Bobbie D. Daly, 53 ECAB 691 (2002); T.M., Docket No. 15-1774 (issued January 20, 2016).
7

support of her claim, appellant submitted a witness statement dated February 5, 2020, from L.R., 

a coworker, who noted that she worked the window from 9:00 a.m. to 10:15 a.m. alone and 

requested assistance at the window, but received none. However, this general statement is 

insufficient to establish that appellant was overworked.21 The job description for a lead sales and 

service associate was to perform a variety of sales and customer support services for products with 

or without direct supervision and indicated that they may work alone or as a working leader. While 

appellant asserts that she worked the customer service window alone from 9:00 a.m. to 10:10 a.m. 

this was consistent with her job description, and it did not demonstrate that she was overwo rked. 

She did not provide specific dates or other details to establish overwork. 22 Furthermore, the 

employing establishment has denied that appellant’s regularly or specially assigned duties required 

additional assistance at the front desk in the mornings from 9:00 a.m. to 10:10 a.m. In a March 3, 

2020 statement, K.B. a manager of customer service, indicated that appellant was able to generally 

perform the required duties of her job in accordance with expectations. 23

Appellant also attributed her emotional condition to administrative and personnel actions. 

As a general rule, administrative and personnel matters, although generally related to the 

employee’s employment, are administrative functions of the employer rather than the regularly or 

specially assigned work duties of the employee and are not covered under FECA. 24 In Thomas D. 

McEuen,

25 the Board has held that an employee’s emotional reaction to administrative actions or 

personnel matters taken by the employing establishment is not covered u nder FECA as such 

matters pertain to procedures and requirements of the employer and do not bear a direct relation 

to the work required of an employee. However, the Board has also held that, where the evidence 

establishes error or abuse on the part of the employing establishment in what would otherwise be 

an administrative matter, such action will be considered a compensable employment factor. 26 In 

determining whether the employing establishment has erred or acted abusively, the Board will 

examine the factual evidence of record to determine whether the employing establishment acted 

reasonably.27

As an investigation was conducted by the U.S. Postal Inspector the manager was obliged 

to discuss the incident with appellant. The Board finds that appellant has not offered sufficient 

evidence to establish that the employing establishment acted unreasonably responding to these 

21 See A.L., Docket No. 17-0368 (issued June 20, 2018); K.B., Docket No. 17-0277 (issued March 16, 2018).

22 See Y.J., Docket No. 15-1137 (issued October 4, 2016) (the Board noted that a claimant did not provide the 

requisite detail regarding specific dates and the duties she performed, which allegedly overwhelmed her and caused 

her stress).

23 See A.L., supra note 21; Bobbie D. Daly, supra note 20.

24 Matilda R. Wyatt, 52 ECAB 421 (2001).

25 See G.R., Docket No. 18-0893 (issued November 21, 2018); Andrew J. Sheppard, 53 ECAB 170-71 (2001), 52 

ECAB 421 (2001); Thomas D. McEuen, 41 ECAB 387 (1990), reaff’d on recon., 42 ECAB 556 (1991).

26 William H. Fortner, 49 ECAB 324 (1998).

27 Ruth S. Johnson, 46 ECAB 237 (1994).
8

matters. Appellant has not submitted the necessary corroborating evidence to establish error or 

abuse by management in these administrative and personnel matters.28

Appellant has alleged other incidents of error and abuse in administrative matters on the 

part of her manager, including denying leave on October 31, 2019 and February 4, 2020. The 

Board has held that disputes regarding the handling of leave requests and attendance,29 are 

administrative functions of the employing establishment and, absent error or abuse, a claimant’s 

disagreement or dislike of such a managerial action is not compensable. Appellant has not 

submitted the necessary corroborating evidence to establish error or abuse by management in these 

administrative and personnel matters.30

Appellant also alleged that her manager K.B. harassed and discriminated against her, which 

further caused her stress and anxiety. To the extent that disputes and incidents alleged as 

constituting harassment and discrimination by supervisors and coworkers are established as 

occurring and arising from the employee’s performance of his or her regular duties, these may

constitute compensable employment factors.31 However, for harassment or discrimination to give 

rise to a compensable disability under FECA, there must be evidence that harassment or 

discrimination did in fact occur. Mere perceptions of harassment or discrimination are not 

compensable under FECA.32 Unsubstantiated allegations of harassment or discrimination are not 

determinative of whether such harassment or discrimination occurred. A claimant must establish 

a factual basis for his or her allegations that the harassment occurred with probative and reliable 

evidence.33 

Appellant further contended that her supervisor, K.B. created a hostile working 

environment. She has not, however, provided corroborating evidence to substantiate her assertions 

of a hostile work environment or establish specific incidents of harassment.34 The Board notes 

that general allegations of harassment are insufficient to establish a compensable factor of 

employment.35 Appellant has not established allegations of harassment with probative and reliable 

evidence. The record does not contain witness statements corroborating her narrative statements 

regarding the allegedly harassing, bullying, or intimidating behavior. The Board finds, therefore, 

that there is no evidence substantiating appellant’s contention that she was harassed by K.B. 

Appellant has, therefore, not met her burden of proof to establish her claim.

28 R.V., Docket No. 18-0268 (issued October 17, 2018).

29 See Judy Kahn, 53 ECAB 321 (2002).

30 R.V., supra note 28.

31 David W. Shirey, 42 ECAB 783, 795-96 (1991).

32 Jack Hopkins, Jr., 42 ECAB 818, 827 (1991).

33 James E. Norris, 52 ECAB 93 (2000).

34 See William P. George, 43 ECAB 1159 (1992).

35 See Paul Trotman-Hall, 45 ECAB 229 (1993).
9

As noted above, the Board finds that appellant has established a compensable employment 

factor under Cutler with regard to her allegation of a confrontation with angry customers while 

performing her regular and specially assigned job duties. Accordingly, OWCP must analyze the 

medical evidence to determine whether she has sustained an emotional condition as a result of this 

compensable employment factor. The case will, therefore, be remanded to OWCP. After this and 

other such further development as deemed necessary, OWCP shall issue a de novo decision.

CONCLUSION

The Board finds that this case is not in posture for decision.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the March 24, 2020 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is set aside and the case is remanded for further proceedings 

consistent with this decision of the Board.

Issued: August 9, 2023

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board