Printing - FECA-PT2 - National Association of Letter Carriers

c. Performance Ratings. The Board remanded the case of Lizzie J. McCray, 36 ECAB 419
listing the dispute over the employee's performance rating as a factor of employment and citing
Derderian. But in Arthur F. Hougens, 42 ECAB 455, the Board found that the employee's reaction
to his rating on his performance evaluation was not covered under the Act. The Board stated:
In view of the fact that appellant's rating was "satisfactory" and was changed to a higher
rating on his appeal, his reaction to it can accurately be described as "self-generated."
Appellant has presented no evidence to substantiate his contention that a rating of
satisfactory was a "bad rating" and "as low as you can go" at his employing establishment.
Although the Board did not state the distinction between Hougens and Derderian and McCray, the
Board finding that Hougens' reaction was self-generated apparently is based on the fact that his
performance was evaluated as satisfactory and his mere perception of the rating as a "bad" one
was not sufficient for his reaction to be covered under the Act.
This interpretation is reinforced by the Board's decision in Thomas D. McEuen, 41 ECAB 387 and 42
ECAB 566. In McEuen the Board stated:
In this case, the medical evidence establishes more than appellant's feeling of job
insecurity: It establishes that appellant's episode of severe depression and impaired
functioning was directly precipitated by what appellant regarded as an unsatisfactory
performance appraisal. The Board finds that appellant's emotional reaction bears a direct
relationship to his regular or specially assigned duties and constitutes an injury in the
performance of duty within the meaning of the Act.
The Office petitioned for reconsideration on the ground that the Board's January 10, 1990 decision
contained legal and factual errors. The petition stated in part:
In the decision on January 10, 1990, the Board concluded that appellant's depression
constituted an emotional condition sustained while in the performance of duty because it
was "directly precipitated by what appellant regarded as an unsatisfactory performance
appraisal." In so doing, the Board departed from longstanding precedent holding that
feelings of job insecurity do not constitute an illness sustained while in the performance of
duty. Raymond S. Cordova, 32 ECAB 1005 (1981); Lillian Cutler, 28 ECAB 125 (1976).
Rather, the Board concluded that "feelings of job insecurity" may be compensable,
depending upon the "source" of those feelings.
In an April 3, 1991 decision granting petition for reconsideration and reaffirming its January 10,
1990 decision, the Board noted:
an unsatisfactory performance rating, without more, is insufficient to provide coverage.
Although the rating is generally related to the employment, it is an administrative function
of the employer, not a duty of the employee. As was held in Cutler, an emotional reaction
under such circumstances would be self-generated. Exceptions will occur, however, in
those cases where the evidence discloses error or abuse on the part of the employing
establishment. That is what has occurred in this case. An error was committed by the
FECA-PT2 Printed: 06/08/2010 197