By Carleen Bongat – April 24, 2026
A federal court sided with the U.S. Postal Service after a manager claimed her FMLA leave was disrupted and her career derailed by age discrimination.
On April 23, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia entered judgment against Ella Vick, a former Manager of Distribution Operations at the Postal Service’s Curseen Morris Processing and Distribution Center in Washington, D.C. The ruling disposed of Vick’s remaining claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and the Family and Medical Leave Act, after a jury had already found in favor of the Postal Service on her Title VII claims following a six-day trial in August 2022.
The facts of the case read like a cautionary tale about what happens when internal communication breaks down during an employee’s protected leave – and how documentation, or the lack of it, can shape the outcome of an employment dispute for years.
Vick, born in 1956, was one of four managers of distribution operations at the Curseen Morris plant. In fiscal year 2011, her supervisor, Plant Manager Wendy McLlwain, rated her performance as “Non-Contributor” – a rating that carried no pay increase – based on productivity data, direct observations, and Vick’s struggles to hold her team accountable. No co-worker or supervisor, apart from Vick herself, testified at trial that she performed her job well.
That rating became consequential. When the Postal Service announced a reduction in force in late 2012, cutting the MDO positions from four to three, the performance scores determined who stayed. Sherrod Stanard, a fellow MDO with a veteran’s preference and a higher performance rating, was retained first. Lonzine Wright, who also earned a “Contributor” rating, took the second slot. That left Vick and Rosetta Watkins – who was 13 years older than Vick – both facing displacement. HR posted a vacancy for the final MDO position. Vick never applied. She instead volunteered for a downgraded role at another facility. Watkins, the oldest of the four, got the remaining spot.
The FMLA claim is where HR professionals should pay close attention. In March 2012, Vick applied for up to 480 hours of intermittent leave to care for her terminally ill mother. McLlwain approved the request. But roughly six to eight weeks in, the manager responsible for collecting FMLA documentation flagged to McLlwain that Vick had not submitted additional paperwork to support her ongoing absence. McLlwain, who did not personally track leave, had a standard form letter prepared and sent to Vick. The letter told Vick to return to work or provide medical documentation within five days, warning that noncompliance could result in AWOL status.
Vick came back to work. Her mother died shortly after.
The court found that the letter likely discouraged Vick from using the full amount of her approved leave. But because Vick filed her lawsuit more than two years after the incident, she needed to prove the interference was willful – that the Postal Service knew it was violating her rights or acted with reckless disregard. The court concluded she could not. McLlwain had acted on the advice of the documentation manager. The letter was a standard Postal Service form. Three other managers confirmed they had sent similar letters to employees in comparable situations. And Vick herself acknowledged she had not communicated with the office responsible for FMLA records after her leave was initially approved. The court called it a bureaucratic snafu – negligence, perhaps, but not a willful violation.
The age discrimination claims fared no better. Every manager Vick accused of bias was over 40. McLlwain had a track record of promoting employees in that same age bracket. The employee who ultimately kept the final MDO position was older than Vick. The court found no credible evidence connecting any employment action to Vick’s age.
A separate retaliation claim tied to a July 2012 disciplinary letter also failed. That letter had been fully rescinded and removed from Vick’s file after McLlwain discovered Vick had not been on duty on one of the dates cited. The court held that a rescinded letter carrying no actual consequence does not amount to an adverse employment action.