Racial Bias Case Before Scotus Could ‘disrupt Critical Function’ Of Mail Delivery

[Kalé Carey]

A CASE OUT OF TEXAS IS HEADING TO THE SUPREME COURT—AND IT CENTERS ON A SERIOUS CLAIM.

A LANDLORD SAYS THE POSTAL SERVICE REFUSED TO DELIVER HER MAIL BECAUSE SHE’S BLACK. 

SHE SAYS THAT RESULTED IN LOST RENT, TENANT DEPARTURES AND MISSED DELIVERIES INCLUDING MEDICATIONS, TAX STATEMENTS  AND CAR TITLES.

ON MONDAY, THE NATION’S HIGHEST COURT AGREED TO HEAR HER CASE—A MOVE THAT COULD CHIP AWAY AT LONG-STANDING LEGAL PROTECTIONS FOR THE POSTAL SERVICE.

UNDER FEDERAL LAW, YOU CAN SUE THE U.S. GOVERNMENT FOR DAMAGES IF A FEDERAL EMPLOYEE’S NEGLIGENCE CAUSES INJURY, PROPERTY DAMAGE OR DEATH—AS LONG AS AN INDIVIDUAL WOULD BE HELD RESPONSIBLE IN THE SAME TYPE OF SITUATION.

BUT THERE’S AN IMPORTANT EXCEPTION WHEN IT COMES TO MAIL.

THE LAW SAYS YOU CAN’T SUE OVER LOST, MISHANDLED OR DELAYED MAIL—INCLUDING LETTERS THAT NEVER GET DELIVERED.

THE QUESTION IN THIS CASE IS: DOES THAT EXCEPTION STILL APPLY IF A POSTAL WORKER INTENTIONALLY REFUSES TO DELIVER MAIL—AND NOT JUST BY ACCIDENT?

A FEDERAL APPEALS COURT IN LOUISIANA RULED THAT USPS’S IMMUNITY DIDN’T APPLY IN LEBENE KONAN’S CASE—ALLOWING HER LAWSUIT TO MOVE FORWARD.

THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE SAYS THE APPEALS COURT IS OPENING THE DOOR FOR PEOPLE TO SUE USPS WHEN THEY DON’T GET THEIR MAIL ON TIME, SAYING “Congress enacted nan postal objection specifically to protect nan captious usability of message transportation from specified disruptive litigation.”

KONAN SUED USPS UNDER THE FEDERAL TORT CLAIMS ACT AND FILED CIVIL RIGHTS CLAIMS AGAINST THE POSTAL WORKERS, ACCUSING THEM OF DISCRIMINATION AND INTENTIONAL MISCONDUCT.

A DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED HER CASE, SAYING USPS WAS PROTECTED BY SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY, AND THAT HER EQUAL PROTECTION CLAIMS LACKED SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE.

BUT THE FIFTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED PART OF THAT RULING, SAYING USPS CANNOT CLAIM IMMUNITY IN CASES OF INTENTIONAL MISCONDUCT.

THE COURT FOUND THE WORKERS DID NOT “LOSE” OR “MISDELIVER” MAIL, BUT INSTEAD CHOSE NOT TO DELIVER IT AT ALL — MAKING IT AN INTENTIONAL ACT, NOT PROTECTED BY THE POSTAL EXCEPTION IN FEDERAL LAW.

HOWEVER, THE COURT UPHELD THE DISMISSAL OF HER CIVIL RIGHTS CLAIMS, SAYING SHE FAILED TO SHOW THAT WHITE PROPERTY OWNERS WERE TREATED DIFFERENTLY — AND THAT EMPLOYEES OF THE SAME AGENCY CANNOT LEGALLY “CONSPIRE” UNDER EXISTING CASE LAW.

THE SUPREME COURT WILL NOW DECIDE WHETHER THIS TYPE OF CLAIM FALLS UNDER THE FEDERAL EXEMPTION PROTECTING USPS—OR IF IT CAN MOVE FORWARD IN COURT.

FOR STRAIGHT ARROW NEWS, I’M KALÉ CAREY 

FOR MORE UNBIASED, FACT BASED NEWS DOWNLOAD THE STRAIGHT ARROW NEWS MOBILE APP OR HEAD TO SAN DOT COM.