Printing - FECA-PT2 - National Association of Letter Carriers

employing establishment that resulted in appellant's emotional reaction. Such a reaction
cannot be labeled "self-generated."
In the instant case, appellant felt the employer was out to get his job. He based this "perception"
on the fact that, instead of receiving a performance rating when due, the employer deferred it in
several particulars for 90 days. He alleged, and the employer conceded, that the proposed
performance rating was incorrectly based on standards not derived from his job description and,
with these standards removed, his performance was satisfactory. As the Office correctly points
out, appellant was never given an 'unsatisfactory' rating. The rating was simply deferred for 90
days. The decision here therefore turns, not on whether the performance rating was unsatisfactory
per se, but on the fact the employer took erroneous action that resulted in the employee's
emotional condition. Such reaction cannot be deemed self-generated.
The Board has thus made it clear that an unsatisfactory performance ratings, performance
assessments and informal discussions of performance, standing alone, are insufficient to provide
coverage under the Act. An employee's reaction to an unsatisfactory performance rating,
performance assessment or informal discussion of performance, absent any evidence of error or
abuse by the employing establishment, is self-generated and therefore not compensable.
d. Fear of Removal. The Board has also distinguished between an employee's reaction to
criticism arising from performance of day-to-day duties, or fear of inability to perform, and the fear
of losing a job or a particular position, even when a performance evaluation is the sole or principal
reason for an employee's actual or possible removal or job change.
In Allen C. Godfrey, 37 ECAB 334, the employee alleged extreme depression due partly to his
reaction to a letter received from the employing establishment proposing to remove him from his
position for failure to meet certain performance requirements of his job. His performance
deficiencies were documented in official performance evaluations. A subsequent letter from an
agency official stated he would not sustain the proposal to remove the employee but would assign
him to a lower-graded position.
The Board referred to two of its previous decisions where an employee's reaction to a discussion
with his supervisor concerning the performance of his work duties, and another employee's
emotional reaction to attempting to meet quality and quantity standards for his job, both
constituted injury in the performance of duty. In this case, the Board found the facts to lead to the
contrary conclusion that, while the employee's disabling reaction had some connection to his
employment, it was not a reaction to his day-to-day duties or fear or anxiety concerning his ability
to perform his employment duties but to what he perceived as a "sudden loss of his career." The
employee's disabling emotional reaction was due to a fear of losing his job and a fear of losing a
particular position, which does not constitute a factor of employment.
e. Harassment. Since Stanley Smith, 29 ECAB 652, the Board has consistently held that an employee
is not required to show that a supervisor's actions constituted harassment or were improper as
long as the employee could show that the disability arose directly from experience of the
supervisor's actions and reaction to them, and that the actions themselves were appropriately
related to the employee's assigned duties and position. In Lewis Leo Harms, 33 ECAB 897 (902),
the Board stated:
FECA-PT2 Printed: 06/08/2010 198