‘Racially motivated harassment’: Supreme Court takes up Black landlord’s bias suit against Postal Service

The Supreme Court‘s choice to review the appeal in Konan v. United States Postal Service is an important step in a case involving racial discrimination claims by postal workers. The case focuses on Lebene Konan, a Black landlord in Euless, Texas, who says she was the victim of a harassment campaign driven by race and carried out by two Postal Service employees.

According to her, this campaign disrupted mail delivery to her rental properties, leading to major financial harm. Konan’s lawsuit states that the postal workers deliberately interfered with mail delivery to two of her rental properties. Their actions reportedly included changing the listed owner of one property to a white tenant and replacing the mailbox lock to prevent Konan and her Black tenants from accessing it.

Konan argues that this intentional interference created serious problems for her tenants. Because they could not receive important mail, such as medical bills, prescription medications, and financial documents, several tenants moved out. As a result, Konan lost rental income, which she estimates amounts to thousands of dollars.

Supreme Court looking at Postal Service allegations

Konan claims these actions were part of a clear pattern of harassment based on race, specifically targeting her because she is Black. Konan’s lawsuit relies on the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), a law that lets people sue the federal government for harm caused by its employees’ wrongful or careless actions.

However, the FTCA has a specific rule that usually prevents lawsuits against the Postal Service for mail-related problems, such as lost, misdelivered, or delayed mail. The Justice Department says this rule exists to protect the Postal Service from being flooded with lawsuits, which could severely disrupt its operations given the huge amount of mail it processes every day.

The government’s argument is based on this mail-related exception in the FTCA. They say Konan’s claims clearly fall under this exception, no matter whether the postal workers’ actions were racially motivated. They warn that if such lawsuits are allowed, it could lead to a flood of legal cases, overloading the Postal Service with costly and time-consuming lawsuits, even for small mail delivery issues.

The lower courts disagreed with this view. At first, a district court dismissed Konan’s case, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit unanimously overturned that decision, allowing the lawsuit to move forward. The appeals court seemed to reject the government’s broad reading of the mail exception, suggesting it might not apply when the case involves intentional acts of discrimination.

The Justice Department’s appeal to the Supreme Court focuses on how the FTCA’s mail exception should be interpreted. They argue that the 5th Circuit’s ruling sets a risky precedent that could expose the Postal Service to countless lawsuits over even minor mail delivery problems. They want the Supreme Court to clarify the limits of the mail exception and confirm their position that intentional actions by postal workers, even if racially discriminatory, are still covered by the exception.

Konan, however, argues that the mail exception was meant to protect the government from lawsuits over less serious mail issues, like accidental damage or small delays, not cases where postal workers intentionally harass someone because of their race, causing major financial harm. She says her case is different and requires a special legal approach.