Opinion

Terina Estrella v. U.S. Postal Service

Court: Merit Systems Protection Board
Filed: Feb 10, 2026
Status: Unpublished
Cited by: 0 cases
Authority: More cited than 38.5%

The opinion

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

TERINA ESTRELLA, DOCKET NUMBER

Appellant, SF-0353-19-0022-E-1

UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, DATE: February 10, 2026

Agency.

THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

Ross Fishbein , Esquire, and Wynter P. Allen , Esquire, Washington, D.C.,

for the appellant.

T. Brooks Anderson , Esquire, and W. Jason Jackson , Esquire, Long Beach,

California, for the agency.

BEFORE

Henry J. Kerner, Vice Chairman

James J. Woodruff II, Member

FINAL ORDER

On January 16, 2026, the Board received a decision issued on January 8,

2026, by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The decision

states that the EEOC differs from the Board’s final decision in this case, and it

refers the case to the Board for further consideration under 5 U.S.C.

§ 7702(b)(5)(B). For the reasons set forth herein, we CONCUR IN and ADOPT

A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add

significantly to the body of MSPB case law. Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,

but such orders have no precedential value; the Board and administrative judges are not

required to follow or distinguish them in any future decisions. In contrast, a

precedential decision issued as an Opinion and Order has been identified by the Board

as significantly contributing to the Board’s case law. See 5 C.F.R. § 1201.117(c).

the EEOC’s finding that the agency failed to provide a reasonable accommodation

to the appellant. Accordingly, we FIND that the appellant proved the elements of

her restoration claim and GRANT her request for corrective action.

BACKGROUND

At all times relevant to the appeal, the appellant was a city carrier with the

agency. Estrella v. U.S. Postal Service, MSPB Docket No. SF-0353-19-0022-I-1,

Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 8 at 15. As an agency employee, the appellant had

to abide by the agency’s general safety rules and regulations, which required,

among other things, that employees wear shoes that were fully enclosed at the

heel, toe, and sides, and constructed of leather or a substantially similar material.

IAF, Tab 13 at 105, 163. However, section 939.12 of the agency’s Employee and

Labor Relations Manual (ELM) gives the agency discretion to grant employees

exceptions to the footwear requirement, including for medical reasons. ELM

§ 939.12, available at https://about.usps.com/manuals/elm/html/elmc9_017.htm .

In 1993 and again in 2013, the appellant filed a notice of occupational

disease claim for bilateral plantar fibromatosis (plantar fasciitis) with the

Department of Labor’s Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs. IAF, Tab 14

at 6. Accordingly, from approximately 2000 onwards, the appellant’s former

supervisor 2 authorized her to wear shoes that were not in compliance with the

agency’s general safety rules and regulations, specifically, Brooks Ariel sneakers,

which were made of a mesh material. Id. at 10; IAF, Tab 13 at 26, Tab 54 at 219.

Further, the agency provided the appellant with modified duties, and as of

August 2014, she worked in a limited duty carrier position at the Burbank Post

Office. IAF, Tab 13 at 16, Tab 14 at 10.

In or around April 2016, the Burbank Officer in Charge (OIC) raised

concerns about the appellant’s noncompliant footwear. IAF, Tab 12 at 232. The

According to the appellant’s former supervisor, she viewed medical documentation,

which had been accepted by the agency, as authorizing the appellant to wear

nondepartmental footwear. IAF, Tab 13 at 26, Tab 54 at 219.

appellant explained that the agency had authorized her to wear the mesh sneakers,

but on April 8, 2016, the Burbank OIC sent the appellant home, advising her not

to report to work without the proper footwear and to obtain updated medical

documentation. IAF, Tab 12 at 158, 223, 232, Tab 14 at 10. On or about May 5,

2016, the appellant submitted an updated form CA-17 Duty Status Report, setting

forth her medical restrictions, as well as a return to work certificate completed by

her doctor, requesting that the agency allow her to wear the mesh sneakers. IAF,

Tab 12 at 159-60. She also submitted a Letter of Medical Necessity completed by

her doctor, advising that, among other things, the agency should consider the

mesh sneakers to be “medically necessary.” Id. at 161.

The agency conducted a job search based on the updated form CA-17,

rescinding the appellant’s limited duty assignment at the Burbank Post Office,

and offering her a limited duty assignment at the Reseda Post Office, which

required more intense physical activity. IAF, Tab 13 at 16, 21. The appellant

accepted the offer, and her new first-line supervisor advised her to report to work

on May 10, 2016, in compliant footwear, denying her request to wear the mesh

sneakers. IAF, Tab 14 at 10. The denial was later reiterated by the Sierra Coastal

District Human Resources Manager. IAF, Tab 12 at 142.

The appellant reported to the Reseda Post Office on May 10, 2016, wearing

compliant footwear. IAF, Tab 14 at 10. However, her medical condition

worsened and on August 15, 2016, the appellant went home and remained in a

leave without pay (LWOP) status after the Reseda Postmaster denied her request

to wear the mesh sneakers. IAF, Tab 12 at 39, Tab 14 at 10-11, Tab 68 at 316.

Shortly thereafter, the appellant submitted a formal request for accommodation to

the agency’s District Reasonable Accommodation Committee, which also denied

her request to wear the mesh sneakers, citing the agency’s safety rules. IAF,

Tab 50 at 29. The appellant remained in a LWOP status until March 24, 2018,

when she started working in an assignment that allowed her to wear the mesh

sneakers. IAF, Tab 15 at 15, Tab 68 at 175, 330.

The appellant filed an equal employment opportunity (EEO) complaint,

raising a denial of reasonable accommodation claim, as well as her claims of

disability discrimination and prior EEO activity. IAF, Tab 12 at 34-44. The

appellant requested a hearing before an EEOC administrative judge, and once a

judge was assigned, the agency filed a motion seeking to dismiss the complaint

and have it heard by the Board as a mixed-case restoration appeal. IAF, Tab 1

at 18-22. Although the EEOC administrative judge denied the motion, the

appellant thereafter filed a restoration appeal with the Board, alleging that the

agency denied her restoration when it rescinded her limited duty assignment on

April 8, 2016, and failed to properly restore her to duty until March 24, 2018. 3

Id. at 1, 4, 12-14. She also raised a denial of reasonable accommodation claim

and claims of disability discrimination and retaliation for prior EEO activity.

IAF, Tab 1, Tab 37 at 1.

On March 9, 2020, a Board administrative judge issued an initial decision

denying the appellant’s restoration claim and finding that the appellant failed to

prove her claims of denial of reasonable accommodation, disability

discrimination, or EEO retaliation. IAF, Tab 74, Initial Decision (ID). Neither

party filed a petition for review with the Board, and the decision became final on

April 13, 2020. ID at 30. Thereafter, the appellant filed a petition with the

EEOC seeking review of the Board’s final decision regarding her discrimination

claims. Estrella v. U.S. Postal Service, MSPB Docket No. SF-0353-19-0022-I-1,

Petition for Review File, Tab 1. In its January 8, 2026 decision, the EEOC found

that the appellant proved that the agency failed to reasonably accommodate her.

Estrella v. U.S. Postal Service, MSPB Docket No. SF-0353-19-0022-E-1, EEOC

The EEOC administrative judge later suspended its case processing pending a

determination on jurisdiction. IAF, Tab 15 at 23-25.

Referral File, Tab 1 at 18-19. 4 Accordingly, the EEOC returned the appellant’s

discrimination claim to the Board for further processing. 5 Id. at 19.

DISCUSSION OF ARGUMENTS ON REVIEW

The statute at 5 U.S.C. § 7702(c) provides that the Board shall either

“concur and adopt in whole the decision of the [EEOC],” or reaffirm the Board’s

decision with any revisions the Board finds appropriate. Under the statute, the

Board may disagree with the EEOC only to the extent that, as a matter of law, the

EEOC’s decision either “constitutes an incorrect interpretation of any provision

of civil service law, rule, regulation or policy directive,” or involves a provision

of civil service law and “is not supported by the evidence in the record as a

whole.” The statute allows the Board to disagree with the EEOC only when the

EEOC misinterprets a civil service law, rule, regulation, or policy directive, or

when the EEOC’s decision is so unreasonable that it amounts to a violation of

civil service law. Campo v. U.S. Postal Service, 93 M.S.P.R. 419, ¶ 4 (2003).

Here, the EEOC’s decision rests solely upon an interpretation of discrimination

law, and we find no basis to conclude that the decision is so unreasonable that it

amounts to a violation of civil service law. Thus, we lack the authority to

disagree with the EEOC’s decision.

Accordingly, we CONCUR IN and ADOPT the EEOC’s decision. This is

the final order of the Merit Systems Protection Board concurring in and adopting

EEOC’s decision. See 5 U.S.C. § 7703(a)(1).

Regarding her disparate treatment claim, the EEOC found that the administrative

judge erred in determining that the appellant “did not establish that the [a]gency

discriminated against her as alleged.” EEOC Referral File, Tab 1 at 19. However, the

EEOC concluded that it “need not address” the appellant’s disparate treatment claims

because she would not be entitled to any additional remedial relief if she were to be

successful on those claims. Id.

The appellant filed an objection to the agency’s letter challenging the EEOC’s

January 8, 2026 decision. EEOC Referral File, Tab 2 at 4. As explained above, the

Board has no basis to disagree with the EEOC’s decision.

ORDER

We ORDER the agency to carry out the EEOC’s decision by conducting a

proper job search retroactive to April 8, 2016, and to consider the appellant for

any suitable assignments available during the relevant time period consistent with

its restoration obligations under 5 C.F.R. § 353.301(d). The agency must

complete this action no later than 30 days after the date of this decision.

In the event that the agency’s retroactive job search uncovers available

work to which it could have restored the appellant between April 8, 2016, and

March 24, 2018, we ORDER the agency to pay the appellant the correct amount

of back pay, interest on back pay, and other benefits under the Back Pay Act

and/or Postal Service regulations, as appropriate, no later than 60 calendar days

after the date of this decision. We ORDER the appellant to cooperate in good

faith in the agency’s efforts to calculate the amount of back pay, interest, and

benefits due, and to provide all necessary information the agency requests to help

it carry out the Board’s Order. If there is a dispute about the amount of back pay,

interest due, and/or other benefits, we ORDER the agency to pay the appellant the

undisputed amount no later than 60 calendar days after the date of this decision.

We further ORDER the agency to tell the appellant promptly in writing

when it believes it has fully carried out the Board’s Order and of the actions it has

taken to carry out the Board’s Order. The appellant, if not notified, should ask

the agency about its progress. See 5 C.F.R. § 1201.181(b).

No later than 30 days after the agency tells the appellant that it has fully

carried out the Board’s Order, the appellant may file a petition for enforcement

with the office that issued the initial decision on this appeal if the appellant

believes that the agency did not fully carry out the Board’s Order. The petition

should contain specific reasons why the appellant believes that the agency has not

fully carried out the Board’s Order, and should include the dates and results of

any communications with the agency. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.182(a).

For agencies whose payroll is administered by either the National Finance

Center of the Department of Agriculture (NFC) or the Defense Finance and

Accounting Service (DFAS), two lists of the information and documentation

necessary to process payments and adjustments resulting from a Board decision

are attached. The agency is ORDERED to timely provide DFAS or NFC with all

documentation necessary to process payments and adjustments resulting from the

Board’s decision in accordance with the attached lists so that payment can be

made within the 60-day period set forth above.

NOTICE TO THE APPELLANT REGARDING

YOUR RIGHT TO REQUEST

ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS

You may be entitled to be paid by the agency for your reasonable attorney

fees and costs. To be paid, you must meet the requirements set forth at Title 5 of

the United States Code (5 U.S.C.), sections 7701(g), 1221(g), or 1214(g). The

regulations may be found at 5 C.F.R. §§ 1201.201, 1201.202, and 1201.203. If

you believe you meet these requirements, you must file a motion for attorney fees

and costs WITHIN 60 CALENDAR DAYS OF THE DATE OF THIS DECISION.

You must file your motion for attorney fees and costs with the office that issued

the initial decision on your appeal.

NOTICE TO THE APPELLANT

REGARDING YOUR RIGHT TO REQUEST

COMPENSATORY DAMAGES

You may be entitled to be paid by the agency for your compensatory

damages, including pecuniary losses, future pecuniary losses, and nonpecuniary

losses, such as emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, and loss

of enjoyment of life. To be paid, you must meet the requirements set out at

42 U.S.C. § 1981a. The regulations may be found at 5 C.F.R. §§ 1201.201,

1201.202, and 1201.204. If you believe you meet these requirements, you must

file a motion for compensatory damages WITHIN 60 CALENDAR DAYS OF

THE DATE OF THIS DECISION. You must file your motion with the office that

issued the initial decision on your appeal.

NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS 6

You may obtain review of this final decision. 5 U.S.C. § 7703(a)(1). By

statute, the nature of your claims determines the time limit for seeking such

review and the appropriate forum with which to file. 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b).

Although we offer the following summary of available appeal rights, the Merit

Systems Protection Board does not provide legal advice on which option is most

appropriate for your situation and the rights described below do not represent a

statement of how courts will rule regarding which cases fall within their

jurisdiction. If you wish to seek review of this final decision, you should

immediately review the law applicable to your claims and carefully follow all

filing time limits and requirements. Failure to file within the applicable time

limit may result in the dismissal of your case by your chosen forum.

Please read carefully each of the three main possible choices of review

below to decide which one applies to your particular case. If you have questions

about whether a particular forum is the appropriate one to review your case, you

should contact that forum for more information.

(1) Judicial review in general . As a general rule, an appellant seeking

judicial review of a final Board order must file a petition for review with the U.S.

Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which must be received by the court

within 60 calendar days of the date of issuance of this decision. 5 U.S.C.

§ 7703(b)(1)(A).

Since the issuance of the initial decision in this matter, the Board may have updated

the notice of review rights included in final decisions. As indicated in the notice, the

Board cannot advise which option is most appropriate in any matter.

If you submit a petition for review to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the

Federal Circuit, you must submit your petition to the court at the following

address:

U.S. Court of Appeals

for the Federal Circuit

717 Madison Place, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20439

Additional information about the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal

Circuit is available at the court’s website, www.cafc.uscourts.gov. Of particular

relevance is the court’s “Guide for Pro Se Petitioners and Appellants,” which is

contained within the court’s Rules of Practice, and Forms 5, 6, 10, and 11.

If you are interested in securing pro bono representation for an appeal to

the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, you may visit our website at

http://www.mspb.gov/probono for information regarding pro bono representation

for Merit Systems Protection Board appellants before the Federal Circuit. The

Board neither endorses the services provided by any attorney nor warrants that

any attorney will accept representation in a given case.

(2) Judicial or EEOC review of cases involving a claim of

discrimination . This option applies to you only if you have claimed that you

were affected by an action that is appealable to the Board and that such action

was based, in whole or in part, on unlawful discrimination. If so, you may obtain

judicial review of this decision—including a disposition of your discrimination

claims —by filing a civil action with an appropriate U.S. district court ( not the

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit), within 30 calendar days after you

receive this decision. 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(2); see Perry v. Merit Systems

Protection Board, 582 U.S. 420 (2017). If you have a representative in this case,

and your representative receives this decision before you do, then you must file

with the district court no later than 30 calendar days after your representative

receives this decision. If the action involves a claim of discrimination based on

race, color, religion, sex, national origin, or a disabling condition, you may be

entitled to representation by a court-appointed lawyer and to waiver of any

requirement of prepayment of fees, costs, or other security. See 42 U.S.C.

§ 2000e-5(f) and 29 U.S.C. § 794a.

Contact information for U.S. district courts can be found at their respective

websites, which can be accessed through the link below:

http://www.uscourts.gov/Court_Locator/CourtWebsites.aspx .

Alternatively, you may request review by the Equal Employment

Opportunity Commission (EEOC) of your discrimination claims only, excluding

all other issues . 5 U.S.C. § 7702(b)(1). You must file any such request with the

EEOC’s Office of Federal Operations within 30 calendar days after you receive

this decision. 5 U.S.C. § 7702(b)(1). If you have a representative in this case,

and your representative receives this decision before you do, then you must file

with the EEOC no later than 30 calendar days after your representative receives

this decision.

If you submit a request for review to the EEOC by regular U.S. mail, the

address of the EEOC is:

Office of Federal Operations

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

P.O. Box 77960

Washington, D.C. 20013

If you submit a request for review to the EEOC via commercial delivery or

by a method requiring a signature, it must be addressed to:

Office of Federal Operations

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

131 M Street, N.E.

Suite 5SW12G

Washington, D.C. 20507

(3) Judicial review pursuant to the Whistleblower Protection

Enhancement Act of 2012 . This option applies to you only if you have raised

claims of reprisal for whistleblowing disclosures under 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(8) or

other protected activities listed in 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(9)(A)(i), (B), (C), or (D).

If so, and your judicial petition for review “raises no challenge to the Board’s

disposition of allegations of a prohibited personnel practice described in

section 2302(b) other than practices described in section 2302(b)(8), or

2302(b)(9)(A)(i), (B), (C), or (D),” then you may file a petition for judicial

review either with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or any court

of appeals of competent jurisdiction. 7 The court of appeals must receive your

petition for review within 60 days of the date of issuance of this decision.

5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1)(B).

If you submit a petition for judicial review to the U.S. Court of Appeals for

the Federal Circuit, you must submit your petition to the court at the following