Casey Hays v. United States Postal Service

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
CASEY HAYS,
Petitioner
v.
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE,
Respondent
______________________
2024-2359
______________________
Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection
Board in No. DE-0752-23-0078-I-1.
______________________
Decided: June 9, 2026
______________________
CASEY HAYS , Louisville, CO, pro se.
ELINOR J OUNG K IM , Commercial Litigation Branch,
Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Wash-
ington, DC, for respondent. Also represented by D EBORAH
ANN BYNUM , P ATRICIA M. MCCARTHY , BRETT SHUMATE.
______________________
P ER CURIAM .
Case: 24-2359 Document: 56 Page: 1 Filed: 06/09/2026

-- 1 of 6 --

HAYS v. USPS 2
Casey Hays, a pro se litigant, petitions from a final or-
der of the Merit Systems Protection Board (Board) affirm-
ing his removal from his position with the United States
Postal Service (USPS). Hays v. USPS, No. DE-0752-23-
0078-I-1, 2024 WL 3534733 (M.S.P.B. July 24, 2024) (Deci-
sion) (SAppx1 42–50). The Board found that Mr. Hays did
not prove harmful procedural error. For the reasons dis-
cussed below, we affirm.
BACKGROUND
Mr. Hays was employed with USPS as a Manager, Cus-
tomer Service Operations, at the University Park Station
in Denver, Colorado. On January 16, 2019, he received a
Letter of Warning for failure to follow instructions, in re-
sponse to which he made “subversive threats” to his man-
ager. SAppx 4. On June 17, 2020, he was questioned about
his unit’s performance. Later that night, he texted threat-
ening messages to Postmasters John and Lora McLucas.
After the McLucases reported the text messages the
following day, postal inspectors reported to Mr. Hays’s
home, a Cook Street address in Denver and interviewed the
appellant. On July 14, 2020, Mr. Hays was placed in an
off-duty unpaid status because USPS determined that his
“presence posed an immediate and continuing risk to the
orderly and proper functioning of the Postal Service.”
SAppx 132; SAppx 6.
On September 1, 2020, a manager of Customer Service
Operations at USPS proposed to remove Mr. Hays based
on a charge of unacceptable conduct arising from his texts
to the McLucases on June 17, 2020. On September 10,
USPS mailed the notice of proposed removal to the mailing
1 “SAppx” refers to the Supplemental Appendix at-
tached to Respondent’s Informal Brief. ECF No. 44.
Case: 24-2359 Document: 56 Page: 2 Filed: 06/09/2026

-- 2 of 6 --

HAYS v. USPS 3
address the agency had on record for Mr. Hays, which was
a Josephine Street address in Denver.
On September 21, 2020, Mr. Hays was incarcerated at
the Adams County Jail. His mother then filed a change of
address form for Mr. Hays with USPS, which updated his
address of record to an address on 108th Place in Com-
merce City, Colorado. Mr. Hays had friends who lived at
this address who informed him what mail he had received.
On October 13, 2020, USPS issued a decision on the no-
tice of proposed removal for Mr. Hays, which sustained the
charge and the proposed penalty of removal. SAppx 7. The
decision was mailed to Mr. Hays at the Josephine Street
address. USPS removed Mr. Hays on October 24, 2020.
The PS-50 form documenting Mr. Hays’s removal reflected
the 108th Place address. Under agency practice, every
time a new PS-50 is created, a copy of that form is mailed
to the employee address on the document.
Mr. Hays’s incarceration ended the following year on
October 21, 2021. Within days, he contacted a union rep-
resentative to inquire about returning to work. The repre-
sentative provided Mr. Hays with a copy of the removal
documents, and Mr. Hays attested that this was when he
“knew for certain” he had been terminated. SAppx 7.
Mr. Hays filed an Equal Employment Opportunity
(EEO) complaint arguing that USPS discriminated against
him based on his disabilities. USPS issued a final agency
decision, concluding that the evidence did not support a
finding of discrimination. See SAppx 58–71.
Mr. Hays then appealed the USPS removal to the
Board on December 29, 2022, raising affirmative defenses
of harmful procedural error and discrimination on the ba-
sis of disability. SAppx 141–42. On March 30, 2023, the
administrative judge (AJ) issued an initial decision affirm-
ing the USPS’s removal decision. SAppx 3, 32.
Case: 24-2359 Document: 56 Page: 3 Filed: 06/09/2026

-- 3 of 6 --

HAYS v. USPS 4
In the decision, the AJ concluded that USPS estab-
lished the charge of unacceptable conduct based on the two
threads of threatening messages on June 17, 2020. SAppx
9–15. The AJ also found nexus between the misconduct
and efficiency of service, finding that Mr. Hays’s actions af-
fected the agency’s trust and confidence in his ability to
perform his duties. Id. at 15–16. Given the nature and
seriousness of the offense, as well as Mr. Hays’s prior dis-
ciplinary record, the AJ determined that his removal was
within limits of reasonableness. Id. at 16–18.
Additionally, the AJ found the Board’s actions to be in
accordance with due process. Id. at 18–26. USPS mailed
the notice of proposed removal to Mr. Hays’s address of rec-
ord on Josephine Street. Id. at 26. The AJ determined
(1) there was evidence the notice was delivered to the ad-
dress before Mr. Hays was incarcerated, and (2) even if the
agency mailed the proposed-removal notice to the incorrect
address, Mr. Hays was not harmed by the error because he
failed to introduce any evidence that could have caused the
agency to reach a different decision. Id. at 22, 26.
Mr. Hays filed a petition for review of the AJ’s initial
decision before the full Board, which denied his petition
and affirmed the initial decision. Decision, 2024 WL
3534733, at *1. Mr. Hays then timely filed a petition for
review of the Board’s final decision. We have jurisdiction
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9).
D ISCUSSION
We must affirm the Board’s decision unless we find
that it is “(1) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion,
or otherwise not in accordance with law; (2) obtained with-
out procedures required by law, rule, or regulation having
been followed; or (3) unsupported by substantial evidence.”
5 U.S.C. § 7703(c).
On appeal, Mr. Hays challenges only the Board’s find-
ing that USPS did not violate his due process rights based
Case: 24-2359 Document: 56 Page: 4 Filed: 06/09/2026

-- 4 of 6 --

HAYS v. USPS 5
on its service of the notice of proposed removal, which was
mailed to the Josephine Street address. Mr. Hays does not
dispute any of the findings regarding the merits of his re-
moval.
“The essential requirements of due process are notice
and an opportunity to respond.” Stone v. Fed. Deposit Ins.
Corp., 179 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (internal alter-
ations omitted) (quoting Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v.
Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 546 (1985)). Prior to termina-
tion, a tenured employee is entitled to oral or written notice
of the charges against him. See id. at 1375–76.
Substantial evidence supports the Board’s determina-
tion that USPS’s service of the notice of proposed removal
comported with due process. The AJ explained that pre-
ponderant evidence that the notice letter was properly
mailed gives rise to a rebuttable presumption that the let-
ter reached the addressee, which could be rebutted by con-
vincing evidence that appellant did not receive the letter.
SAppx 19–20. The AJ found that that the presumption of
receipt was met because preponderant evidence showed
that USPS sent a sealed and properly addressed copy of the
proposed removal to the mailing address that the agency
had on record for Mr. Hays as of September 1, 2020.2 Id.
at 20, 22. The evidence also showed that the envelope was
indeed deposited at Mr. Hays’s employee address of record
prior to his incarceration. Id. at 22.
The AJ then determined that Mr. Hays failed to pro-
vide convincing evidence or testimony sufficient to rebut
the presumption of receipt. Id. at 21–25. Specifically,
Mr. Hays provided no evidence that he had ever updated
his employee mailing address with USPS. Id. at 21. He
2 Specifically, this was the address that Mr. Hays in-
formed the agency was his mailing address in his capacity
as an employee. SAppx 20.
Case: 24-2359 Document: 56 Page: 5 Filed: 06/09/2026

-- 5 of 6 --

HAYS v. USPS 6
attested only that he resided at a different address. Id.
But, as the AJ explained, the fact that Mr. Hays resided at
an address different from his designated mailing address
does not establish that USPS failed to satisfy due process
by sending notice to his mailing address on file. Id. at 21–
22. We agree with the Board that Mr. Hays was obligated
to provide a current mailing address for official correspond-
ence, even if some members of USPS were aware Mr. Hays
was living at a different address during the relevant time
period. Thus, without more, the fact that Mr. Hays resided
at a different address than his designated mailing address
does not establish a due process violation.
Moreover, the AJ found that Mr. Hays failed to make
credible statements reflecting that he did not have notice
of his proposed removal. Id. at 22–23. These credibility
findings are virtually unreviewable. Hambsch v. Dep’t of
Treasury, 796 F.2d 430, 436 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citations
omitted) (“To the extent that the petitioner’s claim is based
upon a challenge to the presiding official’s credibility deter-
minations, we reiterate our previous holdings that these
determinations are virtually unreviewable.”).
The AJ’s findings are supported by substantial evi-
dence.
CONCLUSION
We have considered Mr. Hays’s remaining arguments
and find them unpersuasive.3 For the foregoing reasons,
we affirm the decision of the Board.
AFFIRMED
COSTS
No costs.
3 This includes arguments submitted by Mr. Hays in
his Memorandum in Lieu of Oral Argument. ECF No. 54.
Case: 24-2359 Document: 56 Page: 6 Filed: 06/09/2026

-- 6 of 6 --