In the matter of Petition by ) January 24, 1997 ) JILL JACQUIN ) 128 Avondale Drive ) ) at ) ) Centereach, NY 11720-2833 ) P.S. Docket No. DCA 96-371 APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER: Charles Scialla 453 Preakness Avenue, #5 Paterson, NJ 097502-1121 APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT: Jeffrey Smith United States Postal Service Post Office Box 7401 Hauppauge, NY 11760-9401
FINAL DECISION UNDER THE DEBT COLLECTION ACT OF 1982
Petitioner, Jill Jacquin, filed a petition requesting an oral hearing under the Debt Collection Act of 1982, as amended, 5 U.S.C. §5514(a), when she received notice that Respondent, United States Postal Service, intended to make deductions from her salary to recover what Respondent considered to be overpayments of pay it made to Petitioner.
An oral hearing was held in Hauppauge, New York, and the parties made closing arguments at the conclusion of the hearing.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. In September 1993, Petitioner was promoted to the position of Employee Assistance Program ("EAP") Coordinator (Hearing Transcript, Pages ("Tr.") 46, 84, 90; Petitioner’s Exhibit ("PX") 2).
2. In 1994, Petitioner became aware that EAP Coordinators in other offices were being paid salaries substantially higher than hers. She complained to her supervisor about this situation, and the supervisor began investigating whether Petitioner’s salary could be increased. (Tr. 25, 34-35, 54, 66, 92-93, 99, 103, 105; Respondent’s Exhibits ("RX") 1-4, 1-5).
3. In November 1994, Petitioner’s supervisor obtained a salary increase for Petitioner of $7,560 per year by falsely certifying that the adjustment was due to settlement of an EEO complaint and by pressuring her subordinates to make the adjustment. At that time, Petitioner had no EEO matter pending, and Petitioner was not entitled to the salary increase under Postal Service pay regulations. (Tr. 11-16, 22-23, 29-30, 37-38, 40, 45, 51-52, 93-95; RX 1, 1-1, 1-4, 2).
4. The supervisor had no authority to adjust Petitioner’s salary as she did, and the supervisor’s actions and Petitioner’s salary increase were not approved or ratified by Postal Service management. Respondent did not waive application of the usual pay regulations, which would not have allowed such an increase. (Tr. 12-14, 39-41, 46, 57-58, 60, 63-64, 67; RX 2, 8).
5. In early 1995, Respondent adjusted Petitioner’s salary to eliminate the effect of the $7,560 increase, but not before Petitioner had been paid at the higher level for at least six pay periods, resulting in a net overpayment of salary of $1,219.40. Additionally, Petitioner received a payment under Respondent’s leave buy back program that was $106.06 (net) higher than it would have been absent the $7,560 adjustment. (Tr. 31, 38-39, 95, 110-111, 113; RX 6, 7).
6. On October 3, 1996, Respondent issued Petitioner a Notice of Involuntary Administrative Salary Offsets stating Respondent’s intention to collect by salary offset the amount of $1,325.46 (the sum of the salary overpayment and the leave buy back overpayment) if Petitioner did not repay the amount claimed (PX 1).
7. Petitioner filed a timely petition for a hearing under the Debt Collection Act.
DECISION
Respondent argues that Petitioner was not entitled to the pay increase she received in late 1994 and that she must repay the overpayment of salary and the overpayment of the leave buy back payment she received. Petitioner argues that she did not participate in the deception that resulted in her receipt of the increase, and that collection, if any, should be made from the supervisor who was the wrongdoer. She suggests that the pay regulations could have been waived in order to allow the increase she received, and that she had no reason to know that her supervisor had not obtained such a waiver or other required approval for her increase. Finally, Petitioner argues that if she is found liable to Respondent, repayment at the $200 per pay period rate proposed by Respondent would create a severe financial hardship for her. She requests that any repayment be at the rate of $20 per pay period.
It is undisputed that Petitioner, for at least six pay periods, was paid at a rate in excess of the salary she was entitled to. Respondent’s calculation of the salary overpayment and the leave buy back overpayment has not been challenged, and Respondent has demonstrated that it overpaid Petitioner by $1,325.46. Petitioner correctly points out that Respondent did not show that Petitioner participated in the deception that resulted in her overpayment, but her collusion or knowledge of the wrongdoing is not necessary to establish a requirement that she return money she was not entitled to receive. See Karen M. Ennis, P.S. Docket No. DCA-33, August 29, 1989. Furthermore, Respondent’s failure to attempt to collect the overpayment from the supervisor does not absolve Petitioner from liability, because, regardless who the wrongdoer was, it was Petitioner who received the benefit of the improper salary increase. Finally, while Petitioner may be correct that the limits in Respondent’s pay regulations can be waived, she has not shown that Respondent did so (Finding 4). Therefore, Petitioner is obliged to repay Respondent $1,325.46.
Petitioner has claimed that imposition of the repayment schedule proposed by Respondent would result in a severe financial hardship, and she has submitted some evidence of her financial situation that confirms her claim. Respondent, however, opposes the $20 per pay period schedule Petitioner proposes. Based on the entire record, I conclude that a repayment schedule of $50 per pay period is reasonable.
Petitioner is required to repay the $1,325.46 claimed by Respondent at the rate of $50 per pay period. Except as the repayment schedule has been modified, the petition is denied.
Norman D. Menegat Administrative Judge