Frequently Asked Questions Regarding NAPS v. USPS Lawsuit
What is the lawsuit about?
The lawsuit is about the 2016-2019 pay package the Postal Service provided to all EAS employees (in effect from January 2019 to August 2021), as well as which EAS employees are entitled to be represented by NAPS.
NAPS has asserted the Postal Service violated Title 39 by failing:
1. To provide an “adequate and reasonable” supervisory differential for supervisors of clerks and carriers;
2. To provide compensation for all EAS employees comparable to counterparts in the private sector; and
3. To recognize NAPS’ representation of all EAS employees throughout the Postal Service.
Why has the lawsuit taken so long?
As the saying goes, “the wheels of justice turn slowly.” NAPS first contested the 2016-2019 pay package in July 2019, when it appealed to a fact-finding panel commissioned by the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service. The three-member panel unanimously recommended that the USPS make specific changes to the pay package and EAS pay system. The USPS rejected those recommendations (as permitted under the law), prompting NAPS to challenge the pay package in federal court in July 2020. In federal trial court, NAPS narrowed its claims to the three Title 39 obligations referenced in the first FAQ, but the court dismissed the lawsuit on procedural grounds. NAPS promptly appealed that ruling.
In February 2022, the appeals court ruled for NAPS on every issue. The case then returned to the trial court, where the Postal Service refused to provide NAPS with the pay data it needed to prove its case. Legal wrangling persisted over the terms of discovery for the next year and a half.
Finally, in August 2023, the court ordered the USPS to provide the pay data, but the USPS did not produce the data NAPS needed until spring 2024. According to NAPS’ expert, that data showed the Postal Service paid thousands of supervisors of clerks and carriers at a lower rate of pay than the clerks and carriers they supervised.
NAPS took those and other findings to the district court in March 2025 through a motion for summary judgment, which the Postal Service has contested. Briefs on the motion are expected from the parties into summer 2025, ultimately resulting in a decision from the district trial judge.
When will the lawsuit likely end?
It is hard to predict. We don’t expect a decision from the trial court before the first quarter of 2026. After that, whichever side loses may appeal. If NAPS wins, the Postal Service will have additional work to do to comply with any order of the court.
Why do the topics addressed by the lawsuit differ from the topics addressed in the initial fact-finding?
In the fact-finding, NAPS was permitted to challenge all aspects of the pay package, but not the scope of representation. In the lawsuit, NAPS is permitted to challenge only aspects of the pay package that directly violate Title 39’s requirements, but also is allowed to challenge the Postal Service’s refusal to recognize NAPS as the representative of various groups of EAS employees.
What does NAPS have to show for the effort thus far?
NAPS won an historic opinion from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in February 2022. The Appeals Court ruled for NAPS on every issue that:
1. NAPS has the right to enforce the requirements of the Postal Reorganization Act (Title 39) in court;
2. The Postal Service must provide “some differential” in rates of pay between supervisors and clerks and carriers;
3. The Postal Service must consider private-sector compensation when setting EAS compensation;
4. NAPS represents all postmasters; and
5. NAPS represents all EAS employees unless a particular EAS employee is not a “supervisory or other managerial employee.”
Based on those legal rulings, NAPS continues to seek retroactive increases to the pay received by EAS employees in 2019-2021 (the implementation period of the 2016-2019 pay package), as well as recognition as the representative of all EAS employees.
With respect to the supervi-sory differential, what is each side’s primary argument?
As noted above, in 2024, NAPS finally obtained the Postal Service’s pay data for EAS members, carriers and clerks and had its own expert forensic accountant analyze that data. The expert’s analysis of the pay data found a significant lack of differential in pay between supervisors and carriers (and, though not as large, between supervisors and clerks).
The expert found that over 10,000 supervisors of carriers (out of about 23,000) were not paid a base salary that was even 5% more than over 40,000 carriers; over 7,000 supervisors of carriers were not paid a base salary that was even 5% more than over 90,000 carriers. Similarly, over 1,000 supervisors of clerks (out of almost 3,500) were not paid a base salary that was even 5% more than 2,500 clerks.
Because the Postal Service set the supervisory differential at 5%, NAPS asserts that 5% is the minimum differential required by Title 39. While we believe the differential should be higher, the appeals court left that determination to the Postal Service.
The Postal Service claims that the lack of a supervisory differential between tens of thousands of supervisors and the carriers and clerks they supervise is okay because, on average, supervisors have base salaries higher than carriers and clerks. NAPS has responded that carrier and clerk average salaries are pulled down by large numbers of low-paid carriers and clerks, particularly non-career employees.
The lower averages created by those low-paid workers hide significant disparities between supervisors and line-workers, including the many thousands of carriers and clerks whose salaries are greater than their supervisors’ salaries. The need for a higher floor for supervisors’ rates of pay becomes even more apparent when overtime and a minimum differential of 5% are considered.
If NAPS wins at the trial court, who among its members are the winners?
- If NAPS wins with respect to the requirement that EAS compensation must be comparable to the private sector, then all EAS members from 2019 to the present should benefit (assuming that the court orders a compensation comparability study and that study shows that EAS posi-tions were under-compensated when compared to the private sector); this may vary from position to position.
- If NAPS wins with respect to the supervisory differential, the primary beneficiaries will be (a) supervisors of Customer Service, managers of Cus-tomer Service, and some postmasters, (b) who were employed at any time from January 2019 to August 2021
(the implementation period of the 2016-2019 pay package), and (c) were at the lower end of the supervisors’ pay scale. Some supervisors of Distribution Operations and managers of Distribution Operations from that same period also will benefit. Supervisors of carriers will benefit more than supervisors of clerks be-cause carriers were paid more than clerks, but the Postal Service calculat-ed its SDA minimum for both groups based on the lower-paid clerks, so ap-plying the same 5% differential sepa-rately to each group (as has been done since September 2021) results in different minimum hourly rates or salaries. - Postmasters have already won the right to be represented by NAPS.
- EAS employees in over 1,000 Headquarters and Area positions also stand to win the right to be repre-sented by NAPS.
If NAPS wins at the trial court, how would a remedy likely be fashioned with respect to the supervisory differential?
There are a number of possibili-ties, but the court likely would order the Postal Service to recalculate the SDA minimum salary for 2019-2021 to assure that supervisors of carriers and clerks are retroactively paid at least 5% more than the craft employ-ees they supervised. NAPS will insist these retroactive pay adjustments also bring about the recalculation and ad-justment of retirement benefits for af-fected employees and retirees.
What are the next steps? Can the lawsuit be settled?
NAPS anticipates that briefing of cross-motions for summary judg-ment will conclude this summer. The judge can issue a decision anytime thereafter, though his decision is likely to take at least six months after the briefing is concluded.
NAPS is committed to pursuing the lawsuit to a successful resolution, either by means of a judgment from the court or a settlement. A settle-ment of the lawsuit always is possi-ble, dependent on good-faith negoti-ations between the parties, but NAPS will not sell its members short.
The NAPS Executive Board will continue to assure the best interests of all NAPS members are served and that NAPS members are adequately represented and compensated in ac-cordance with the law.
Andrew Freeman is the lead attorney in NAPS’ lawsuit against the U.S. Postal Service. He is a partner at Brown, Gold-stein & Levy, a nationally recognized law firm based in Baltimore, MD. Lau-ren Kelleher is an associate attorney at the firm who works with Freeman on the lawsuit. Bruce Moyer is NAPS’ legal counsel.