ILUVMAIL, IN THE SAME BOAT PAL, YES I HAVE SEEKED COUNCIL AND THEY WILL PAY FOR ALL THE BS DONE TO MYSELF. I HAVE MORE THAN SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.. WHAT CRAFT ARE YOU IN BY ANY CHANCE? HMMMMM WOULD'NT BE THE MAILHANDLER CRAFT NOW WOULD IT? OR THE CLERK CRAFT? ANYWAYS THE ANSWER FOR YOUR PROBLEM IS TO SEEK COUNCIL AND EVEN THOUGH YOU HAVE PROPER EVIDENCE THE JOURNEY WILL BE AROUND FOUR TO FIVE YEARS BEFORE EVEN STEPPING INTO COURT. DEPOSITIONS ARE DONE AND INVESTIGATIONS. WHATEVER ROAD YOU TAKE I HOPE YOU SEEK COUNCIL AND BEST OF LUCK IN ANY FUTURE INTENTIONS.

Hi Rick
Thanks for the homepage link. With regard to your question – a schedule award is a finite amount of money awarded for a job-related injury, based on a percentage of loss of a certain body part. It’s not likely that the Postal Service would invest much in a fraud investigation that could cost more than the potential loss due to fraud. It’s my experience that these video-tape intrusions are targeted towards active-duty employees, and mostly at those who have filed workers’ comp claims (though not exclusively). Not very many prosecutions are successful, but those that are become a useful deterrent for those that might try to defraud the government. I find that there are significantly more legitimate claims that are denied, than there are fraudulent claims. Unfortunately, so many employees fear the Gestapo tactics, the endless paperwork and medical documentation, and the emotional toll it takes just to get a meritorious claim accepted that they won’t file a claim, even when their claim is legitimate. But in the situation that you describe I wouldn’t be too concerned.

JR: Postal Employee Advocate /m106 - good article. I posted a link to it on PEN's homepage today (7/24/08).

I have fighting an OWCP claim now since Feb. 2006. It was vacated for errors by OWCP in June 2007 - guess what on July 11, 2008 it was vacated once more for errors by OWCP and the SECOP. This stuff never ends.

Listen - I am fully retired normally. I do not draw workers compensation but do draw a small schedule award. Is this on their 'movie making' agenda as well?

Rick - PEN

I’ve been receiving an unusually high number of contacts recently regarding photographic and video-tape “evidence” presented by the Postal Service in several administrative forums (OWCP, EEO, MSPB). The video-tape usually contains snippets of the employee’s activities, over an extended period of time, while away from work (at home, at the grocery store, etc.). Of course the intent is to show that the employee is either committing workers’ comp fraud, or that the work restrictions imposed by a physician, are not complied with during everyday life activities. The Postal Service will show these snippets (or photographs) to the employee’s doctor; to an administrative judge or a mediator; and of course to OWCP.
When presented to the employee’s doctor, it’s usually done by a Postal Inspector, with the intended purpose of intimidating the doctor. A threat of confiscation of all medical records, office files and computers due to fraud, is an effective way to extort cooperation (or at least cause the doctor to drop you as a patient). Any employee who has some type of work restriction, whether job-related or not, should advise their doctors up front that this is one of the tactics used by the Postal Service to harass employees and intentionally adversely affect the doctor-patient relationship. Doctors should be reminded that the release of any records, files, or medical evidence, absent a signed medical release from the patient, is verboten. Just like any law enforcement agency, the Postal Inspection Service must present a warrant, signed by a judge, in order to confiscate records or documents for which the patient has not signed a release. Employees should talk to their doctors specifically about whether the restrictions that s/he imposes is a “work restriction” or a “life restriction”. For example, does a 10 lb. lifting restrictions mean – don’t lift anything more than 10 lbs at work, or don’t lift more than 10 lbs ever? Does a driving restriction limiting an employee to only two hours per day mean only two hours a day while at work? What about the time it takes to drive to and from work? Is that included? What if you use up all of the two hours at work, are you allowed to drive any more than that when you are away from work? These may be simplified examples, but it’s important that employees have this communication with their doctors. It also protects the doctors when they can justify the difference between work restrictions and life restrictions.
Any offer of video-tape “evidence” (including still photos) should be challenged right away. First, how is the video or photos relevant to the issues before the judge, arbitrator or OWCP? If it’s not relevant, why is it being presented or offered as evidence? Who took the video-tape or photos, and over what period of time? How many hours of tape was made, or photos taken in order to acquire the few photos, or snippets that were edited from all of the entirety of the video or photos? Was the videographer a law enforcement official or other contract investigator? Was the photographer or videographer an expert, or otherwise adequately trained to obtain photo or video evidence? What is/are the name(s) and contact information for the photographers/videographers so that they can be cross-examined as to the “evidence” they obtained? Under whose authority, direction, or request was this type of evidence obtained? What was the stated purpose for this clandestine method of acquiring evidence?
Keep in mind that, if this “evidence” is related to an EEO complaint, you should also ask the Postal Service to articulate a legitimate non-discriminatory reason why evidence in this manner, was acquired or obtained. Does the Postal Service similarly clandestinely photograph or video-tape other employees who aren’t in the same protected group or class, when they are away from work? If so, who? When? Where? Does the Postal Service only video-tape employees who are disabled?
In my experience, the Postal Service is usually so excited and giddy to engage in a “gotcha” moment that they seldom establish the necessary FOUNDATION to submit photographs and/or video-tape as evidence. But even if their Gestapo tactics fail directly, indirectly they have already caused damage by implying that the employee has committed fraud. That’s an adverse impression that can prejudice the opinion of the judge; even the employee’s doctor. (Doctor’s don’t like being taken advantage of, and any notation to that effect in your medical records can follow you to other health care providers.)
Remember the Golden Rule of Paranoia – Just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean that they’re not watching you.
Please disseminate this information to as many Postal Employees and unions as possible.
J.R. Pritchett
postalemployeeadvocate@juno.com

Don/m104
EEO complaints are never a “slam dunk”. In your friends’ case, even though the paperwork states that she was separated due to inability to do her job, she can make a prima facie case of discrimination by showing that, once she notified her supervisor that she was pregnant, she was subsequently terminated. She can also make the argument that “but for” her pregnancy she would not have been terminated. If the P.O. is saying that she was separated for inability to do the job, and her only restrictions were directly related to her pregnancy; that also makes a prima facie case of discrimination. It’s likely that an EEO on this matter would at least entitle her to another Casual appointment.

Edited by author 07-17-2008 03:04 PM
P E A,

The termination paperwork says she got fired for inability to do her job...not because of pregnancy...meaning if she had hurt her back and was unable to do her job...they would have fired her too. Anyway, he has already went the route of EEO and the guy seems to think it is a slam dunk...what do you think based upon what I just said.

Don/m100
Termination of one’s employment due to pregnancy is a violation of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. You friend’s wife should contact the Postal Service’s EEO office in Tampa, Florida (888) 336-8777 and file a complaint of discrimination. Even if she is no longer a postal employee, the discrimination arose from, or flowed from her employment.

Also get a lawyer

Don have her file an immediate FMLA and file it with the agency. Now the burden of proof is on management when in fact she was hired under the rehab act of 73.

I have a friend whose wife is a casual hire in a post office. She found out she is pregnant and went to the doctor. She has been ordered to have a 25 pound weight lifting restriction. She is currently performing duties requiring lifting up to 50 pounds. In the past, they have made accommodations for other casuals....but upon receiving the restriction note, the supervisor fired her on the spot...without even consulting HR. What is his wife's recourse, if any, since she is a casual. She was 45 days away from a decision to retain her as a casual.

/m98
In order to file an EEO complaint you must show prima facie (on the face of it) evidence of discrimination. The first prong is that you identify your particular protected group or class (race, color, national origin, age, sex, religion, disability, or retaliation of protected EEO activity). The second prong is that you have to show that you suffered an adverse employment action (e.g. discipline, denial of promotion, loss of pay or any other benefits and privileges of employment, etc.). The third and final prong is – you must show that you were treated differently, or less favorably than other similarly situated employees (same craft, same facility, same supervisor, etc.). If you believe that this is happening, how do you show it? You need either direct evidence (e.g. if a supervisor said, “I would never hire a woman for that position”; or comparative evidence. That is, where you can show that other employees, not of your same protected class or group, was/were treated differently or more favorably.
What you need to keep in mind is that the EEOC does not have jurisdiction over retaliation for grievance activity, or OWCP activity, or FMLA activity, etc. The EEO Commission only has jurisdiction over reprisal from protected EEO activity. This doesn’t necessarily mean that you’re protected only when you file an EEO complaint. You’re also protected if you witness for someone else who has filed an EEO, either in writing, or by providing testimony. A Steward or grievant who has included Article 2 (Civil Rights and Non-Discrimination) in their grievance may also be protected. Even an employee who has merely stated an objection to any agency rule, policy or action they believe is discriminatory, is also considered protected EEO activity.
As far as going to court – just remember that as a federal employee you must first exhaust your administrative remedies before you can take the matter to court. If you don’t have a copy of the Final Agency Decision to show that you have exhausted those remedies, the court is likely to dismiss your case.

Hello again,
  I need info on how to go about filing an EEO against management. The move grievences I file(for just causes) the more harassment, disrespect, etc. I get. They are coming up with everything under the sun to charge me with. I am reading that I should hire a lawyer to proceed, question is ...where does one find a good one? From what I have read, chances are that I don't have in chance in hell of winning, dispite evidence. I am getting the feeling that they want to trump up to try and fire me. I have only worked my tail end off for the USPS and this is the thanks I get. I am wondering if I should hire a lawyer and take this to civil court(public) and skip the EEO process. In other words sue, sue, and sue some more for all the mental stress, etc. they are causing me. Any type of advise would be greatly appreciated.

They want to know basically when they can expect you to be gone. You say you can never know day to day how much care you will be needed to provide. Perhaps something along these lines: "Employee will be called upon to provide care intermittently, from X amount of time(least amount you might expect, say 2 hours) up to an entire day, 8 hours. Illness progresses unpredictably and requirements for daily care can only be determined as the immediate situation is assessed each day."
If you can get a statement from your doctor relating to the unpredictability of the your wife's illness, speaking to the need to assess each day as it comes, maybe talking about percentage of time she might need assistance (like 15 days out of 30 being an average, for example) or something similar.

I need some help filling out the last paragraph on page 3 of the WH-380 FMLA form. My wife is currently under a doctors care for an arthritic condition (FMS), my doctor has filled out the form and yet we are told to provide more. This is a recognized debilitating physical problem that sometimes disables her to the point of needing my help. In the future due to the new drug it may be classified as a disease, (recently a drug was approved for it's treatment) for now it is called a chronic condition , which adds to my struggle for acceptance. I have been certified for FMLA for many years now, re-certifing yearly (sometimes monthly depending on supervisor).
    Each day is different with FMS and it is impossible to accurately provide information on what will be needed. The doctor is usually insulted by the request but attempts to help in any way possible. If anybody knows what may satisfy the last paragraph on page 3 of the WH-380 FMLA form requirements for an arthritic condition.
  PLEASE HELP. THANK YOU.

Richey executive order 5396 is violated nationally you need to apply the FMLA form from your union and not the optional wh-380 form if you need assistance let me know

Can a supervisor tell you to do your route, do collections, do an hour and a half on another route and be back at a certain time? He is basically telling you to run like hell and be unsafe!! And then if you tell him he gave you too much, he considers you a whiner and ships you out to a shitty station the next day. I just want a fair day! I am sick of these supervisors trying to make themselves look good with numbers on my behalf.