Printing - FECA-PT2 - National Association of Letter Carriers

To the extent that disputes and incidents alleged as constituting harassment
by coworkers are established as occurring and arising from appellants
performance of his regular duties, these could constitute employment factors.
(emphasis supplied)
However, in Abe E. Scott, 45 ECAB 164, the Board specifically stated that under a particular fact pattern,
coworker harassment is a factor of employment.
b. Another factor to consider in determining the compensability of injuries allegedly due to
coworker harassment is the "friction and strain doctrine" (see Larson, The Law of Workmen's
Compensation, §11.16[a]) which is followed by the Board. Under this doctrine the fact that
employees with their individual characteristics (emotions, temper, etc.) are brought together in the
workplace creates situations leading to conflicts which may result in physical or emotional injuries.
Because these conflicts have their origin in the employment they arise out of and in the course of
employment even though they have no relevance to the employee's tasks. In other words, a
conflict between employees involving a nonwork topic may be found to have occurred in the
performance of duty because the employment brought the employees together and created the
conditions which resulted in the conflict.
However, the "friction and strain doctrine" does not apply to privately motivated quarrels or
disputes imported from outside the employment. (see Larson, §11.20).
Although the Board did not use the phrase "imported into the employment" in the case of
Sharon R. Bowman, 45 ECAB 187, its decision is based on the same principle. In affirming the
Office's decision that appellant had not sustained an emotional condition in the performance of
duty the Board found that the gossip of coworkers regarding her ex-husband did not relate to her
job duties or requirements and was therefore not compensable.
The Board had previously found in the case of Gracie A. Richardson, 42 ECAB 850, issued August
8, 1991 (footnoted in Bowman) that "Appellants fear of gossip is a personal frustration which is
clearly not related to her job duties or requirements and is thus not compensable."
c. If the evidence shows that the alleged incidents of harassment actually occurred, and that
they arose out of the employment and did not involve personal matters imported from outside the
employment, the CE may find that the employee was in the performance of duty. However, in
most cases the initial reports will not provide enough information for the CE to make this
determination. Therefore, the CE should develop the evidence by obtaining the following:
(1) A statement from the employee (if a statement has not been submitted or a
submitted statement is inadequate) describing in detail the alleged incidents of harassment,
the frequency of their occurrence and their effect on the employee;
(2) Statements from coworkers allegedly involved in the harassment describing in detail
their version of events;
(3) A statement from the employee's supervisor stating whether he or she was aware of
the situation as described by the employee and coworkers, and describing any supervisory
FECA-PT2 Printed: 06/08/2010 184