January 31, 2013
VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS AND FACSIMILE: (215) 351-3852
Ms. Jennifer BreslinSenior Litigation CounselUnited States Postal ServiceEastern Area Law Office3190 South 70
th
StreetPhiladelphia, Pennsylvania 19153
RE: Automated Traffic Control Violation Notices Nos.: 2181200882419,2181200882724, 2181200882930, 2181200888705, 2181300000276,2181200858856, and 2181200856231
Dear Ms. Breslin:Please accept this letter in response to your correspondence dated January 22, 2013, whereinyou addressed several traffic citations United States Postal Service (“USPS”) employees(s)received while in the course of performing their job duties in the City of East Cleveland, Ohio.To begin, we must admit our surprise upon reading your letter. Please understand that as aphoto traffic safety company we have grown accustomed to receiving letters from citizens andentities asserting traffic laws do not apply to them. However, we never expected to receivesuch a letter from the USPS. The crux of your argument appears to be that due to its status asan “independent establishment of the executive branch of the Government of the United States”the USPS and all its drivers are rendered virtually untouchable by state and local laws.Unfortunately for the USPS, this proposition is completely contrary to the case law, is in directconflict with the instructions set forth in the Postal Employee’s Guide to Safety Manual, andcontradicts other instances where the USPS has paid similar photo enforcement violations.Although the United States government is free from state regulation in the absence ofcongressional mandate to the contrary,
Hancock v. Train
, 426 U.S. 167, 178–81 (1976), theUSPS's immunity does not shield its employees from civil fines for violations of statutes,regulations, or ordinances relating to the safe operation of motor vehicles.
See Commonwealth of Virginia v. Stiff
, 144 F.Supp. 169 (W.D. Va. 1956);
State of Oklahoma v. Willingham
, 143F.Supp. 445 (E.D. Okla. 1956). In
Commonwealth v. Closson
, the court held that the driver of avehicle transporting United States mail is not exempt from the operation of state statutes andmunicipal ordinances regulating traffic on the highways. 229 Mass. 329, 118 N.E. 653, (1918).Thus, a fine for a violation committed while using a government vehicle is the personalresponsibility of an employee.Here, the East Cleveland ordinance establishing its photo enforcement program imposes liabilityfor red-light violations on the owner of the vehicle. East Cleveland Ordinance No. 07-06,Section 1(c)(1). Pursuant to the statute, the owner of the vehicle may transfer liability to the
Letter to Jennifer S. BreslinJanuary 31, 2013Page 2
operator of the vehicle by providing an affidavit identifying the operator. East ClevelandOrdinance No. 07-06, Section 1(c)(4)i. Rather than asserting immunity and demonstrating to itsemployees and the public that USPS postal carriers can drive recklessly without penalty, theUSPS would be better served to simply transfer liability to the driver committing the violation sothat the employee may take personal responsibility, as the City of East Cleveland ordinancecontemplates.Furthermore, such a course of action is consistent with the Postal Employee’s Guide to SafetyManual (“Employee Safety Guide”) (http://www.nalc.org/depart/cau/pdf/manuals/EL-814%20(2006-Aug).pdf), presumably issued to all postal service employees, which states thatemployees must “obey all state and local traffic laws when driving any Postal Service vehicle.”Employees “will receive no special privileges or rights as a postal driver.” The Employee SafetyGuide clearly makes “citations for traffic violations” the personal responsibility of the employee.See Employee Safety Guide, Section X, Motor Vehicles, Section B. It is disturbing, to say theleast, to think that the USPS would not only permit, but actually
assist
its employees to avoidpersonal responsibility by attempting to shield them with an assertion of USPS immunity ratherthan transferring liability to them so that they can be held personally responsible for their poordriving.It’s evident that the case law is settled on the side of liability for traffic infractions, and theEmployee Safety Guide imposes personal responsibility for civil infractions on each and everyUSPS employee. Yet, you as counsel for the USPS, write to us to inform us that instead, theUSPS is only obligated to “work within local and state laws and regulations, when feasible.”Surely you are not arguing that the drafters of the statutory language envisioned carving outprotection for the irresponsible and dangerous driving habits of USPS drivers.Finally, please allow me to remind you of just a few examples where the driving and non-drivinghabits of various USPS carriers resulted in well publicized legal consequences which werefound to be in conflict with USPS’ mission “of providing prompt, reliable and efficient mailservices to all communities…” My first example is out of New Mexico, where a USPS truckrolled over after colliding with another vehicle. The driver was
cited for running a red-light
at theintersection and causing the accident. Our second example is from Massachusetts, where aUSPS truck driver was
cited with failure to yield for a bicyclist
after he struck a four-year old girlon a bicycle. In Wisconsin, a USPS truck driver was
cited for operating a vehicle while intoxicated
on the job. My last and favorite example is of the USPS truck driver delivering mailwhile naked. He was
arrested for lewd and lascivious behavior
.The tickets you disclaimed liability for in your January 22, 2013 letter were received by theUSPS for its driver(s) running red-lights as well as speeding in school zones. By attempting tohide behind an immunity claim, you are aiding and abetting your drivers in their blatantdisregard for the traffic laws in East Cleveland, which have endangered other drivers,pedestrians and school children.We suggest that you transfer the liability for the infractions to the USPS drivers who incurredthem, and instruct them that pursuant to Ohio law, as well as the USPS guidelines, theinfractions are their responsibility. If you choose to ignore the infractions, penalties and fineswill continue to accumulate.
Letter to Jennifer S. BreslinJanuary 31, 2013Page 3
In closing, in light of your immunity assertion, we have taken the liberty of crafting a revisedversion of the Post Office Creed:
Neither snow, nor rain, nor heat, nor gloom of night, nor traffic lights stays these couriers from the swift completion of their appointed rounds.
Sincerely,American Traffic Solutions, Inc.George J. HittnerGeneral Counsel and Corporate SecretaryCc: Mr. Patrick DonahoePostmaster General and Chief Executive OfficerUnited States Postal ServiceThe Honorable Tom CarperChairman, Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental AffairsUnited States SenateThe Honorable Tom CoburnRanking Member, Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental AffairsUnited States SenateThe Honorable Darrell IssaChairman, Committee on Oversight and Government ReformHouse of RepresentativesThe Honorable Elijah CummingsRanking Member, Committee on Oversight and Government ReformHouse of Representatives
|