Printing - FECA-PT2 - National Association of Letter Carriers

complaints with the NLRB and EEOC, and numerous grievances. Yet, the record discloses
no finding by the NLRB or EEOC to support appellant's assertions, and it appears that his
grievances have yielded nothing more favorable than settlements without prejudice to the
position of any party. The evidence does not establish that appellant was in fact the subject
of harassment or discrimination.
Requirements imposed by the employment are not limited to assigned duties as such. Other
circumstances relating to assigned duties may become part of the employee's employment and be
sufficient to bring an injury or illness within the coverage of the Act.
In Pasquale Frisina, 34 ECAB 1230, the employee claimed that his emotional condition resulted
from his receipt of an employing establishment letter criticizing his wife for the method of reporting
his illness (telephone request to supervisor for sick leave). The employing establishment had
procedures for reporting sick leave and returning to work. The employee's method for reporting
sick leave had been questioned in the past. Citing 5 CFR 630.101, which charges agency heads
with the responsibility for administering sick leave accounts for employees and provides how
employees shall apply for sick leave, the Board found that the procedure for reporting sick leave
was a requirement imposed by the employment. According to the Board the circumstances leading
to the employee's alleged emotional reaction (wife's request on his behalf for sick leave; receipt of
employing establishment letter) were part of the employment and related to the duties the
employee was employed to perform and to the requirements imposed by the employment.
The Board reached a different conclusion in Joseph C. DeDonato, 39 ECAB 1260. Appellant
contended that his emotional disability was caused by several factors including the employing
establishment's refusal to grant his application for sick leave. The Board found that all of the
factors cited by appellant, including the denial of sick leave, were factors involving personnel
matters which did not have such a relationship to his assigned duties so as to be regarded as
arising out of and in the course of the employment. The Board distinguished its holding in Frisina
by noting that "Frisina addresses the issue of a duty imposed upon the employee by required
reporting instead of the issue in the instant case which addresses the administrative denial of
leave, and which is purely a personnel matter."
FECA-PT2 Printed: 06/08/2010 202