QuickTopic logo Create New TopicNew Topic My TopicsMy Topics News
 
Skip to Messages

TOPIC:

Postal EEO Forum

^     All messages            11555-11570 of 11570  11539-11554 >>
11570
Looking for tax free
01-19-2015
11:54 AM ET (US)
Hi,
As you know the USPS does not make tax free EEO settlements.
I have an approved claim for a physical condition. I am told that I should file a file a “tort claim” based on my accepted OWCP physical condition. The tort claim is to be placed in abeyance once it is filed and go no where. If and when I do settle my EEO complaint with the USPS the settlement will most likely be a global settlement. I then have a right to claim with the IRS that part of the settlement was for my physical condition, so, that part would be tax free. So does any one have any feed back on this position? How does one go about filing a tort claim against the USPS?
The other way is not paying your taxes and claim the money was for the accepted OWCP physical condition. Spend all of the money and after 4 years you can get rig of your taxes in a bankruptcy.
Does any one have any feed back on these positions.
11569
topcat1
01-12-2015
01:15 AM ET (US)
Slingshot,thanks post 11567 ,will send my email to you.
11568
topcat1
01-12-2015
12:55 AM ET (US)
Slingshot TO BAD THIS DOES NOT HOLD UP TO OIG 1=11=15 POST ON POSTAL REPORTER LAST POST OR HIS LAWYER WOULD HAVE A CASE,I CAN ,AND CAN'T BELIEVE THE EXTENT THEY WENT TO TRY AND GET HIM.
Edited 01-12-2015 01:11 AM
11567
SlingshotPerson was signed in when posted
01-12-2015
12:35 AM ET (US)
/m11565
Nice of you to post this info Top. Send me you email to Slingshot_317@yahoo.com
11566
SlingshotPerson was signed in when posted
01-12-2015
12:29 AM ET (US)
Retired Postal Worker Fights To Get Job Back After 20 Years

January 5, 2012 by postal
Filed under: Injured On Duty, legal cases, postal, postal news, usps

Charles Johnson worked for the United States Postal Service from 1960 until he accepted an early retirement offer on November 20, 1992, at age 52. The following is from the Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit and the MSPB.


JOHNSON v. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

CHARLES G. JOHNSON, Petitioner, v. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD, Respondent.

No. 2011-3130.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Decided: January 4, 2012.
In 1990, Mr. Johnson suffered an injury while working. He sought workers’ compensation benefits from the Office of Workers’ Compensation Program (“OWCP”). OWCP accepted his claim for mild binaural hearing loss but did not grant him wage-loss compensation. Over the next several years, Mr. Johnson unsuccessfully litigated in various forums the question of whether his retirement was involuntary or was the result of age discrimination.

In March 2010, Mr. Johnson asked to be restored to employment with the Postal Service. The Postal Service denied his request on the ground that Mr. Johnson had voluntarily retired and had not been separated from his position as a result of a compensable injury. Mr. Johnson appealed that decision to the Merit Systems Protection Board. After considering evidence from Mr. Johnson on the issue of the Board’s jurisdiction over the appeal, the administrative judge who was assigned to the case held that his appeal was barred by claim preclusion and issue preclusion.

On Mr. Johnson’s petition for review, the full Board vacated the administrative judge’s ground of decision but nonetheless dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The Board held that an employee may appeal a denial of restoration only if his reemployment rights have been violated and that reemployment rights are triggered under 5 C.F.R. part 353 only if the employee has suffered a cessation of periodic support or wage loss compensation. Mr. Johnson had no appeal rights, the Board ruled, because it was undisputed that he never received periodic support payments or wage loss compensation from OWCP.

DISCUSSION
 A federal employee who has been separated from his position because of a compensable injury enjoys certain rights to restoration to his prior position or an equivalent position when he fully or partially recovers from the condition that had kept him from working. 5 U.S.C. 8151; 5 C.F.R. 353.301.

The full Board dismissed Mr. Johnson’s appeal on the ground that “it is only the cessation of periodic support or wage loss compensation, not the termination of payment of scheduled compensation awards or medical benefits, that triggers an individual’s entitlement to restoration rights under [5 C.F.R. part 353].” Upon reviewing the briefs in this case, this court noted that certain previous decisions by the Board seemed to be contrary to the Board’s ground of decision in this case. See Bartol v. U.S. Postal Serv., 69 M.S.P.R. 106, 108-09 (1995) (holding that “the payment of medical expenses . . . is sufficient to make the injury a compensable injury within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. 8151 and would entitle the appellant to restoration rights”); Mobley v. U.S. Postal Serv., 86 M.S.P.R. 161, 164 (2000); Tat v. U.S. Postal Serv., 109 M.S.P.R. 562, 566-67 (2008); Young v. U.S. Postal Serv., 45 M.S.P.R. 424, 430 (2010). Accordingly, the court requested that the Board submit a supplement brief to address that seeming inconsistency. Mr. Johnson was also given the right to make a supplemental submission on that issue.

In a supplemental brief filed in response to the court’s request, the Board’s General Counsel acknowledged that the Board erred in applying its precedents. The General Counsel explained that the cases relied on by the Board in its opinion, Nixon v. Dep’t of the Treasury, 104 M.S.P.R. 189 (2006), and Carter v. U.S. Postal Serv., 27 M.S.P.R. 252 (1985), concerned the issue of whether an employee has fully or partially recovered from a compensable injury, rather than whether an employee has suffered a compensable injury in the first place.

Under the governing precedents in the Bartol line of cases, cited above, the General Counsel concluded that Mr. Johnson had a “compensable injury” for purposes of 5 C.F.R. 353.301 because he had a “medical condition accepted by the OWCP to be job-related and for which medical or monetary benefits are payable from the Employees’ Compensation Fund.” Tat, 109 M.S.P.R. at 567. The General Counsel added that because Mr. Johnson suffered a “compensable injury,” the Board must determine whether his separation resulted from or was substantially related to his compensable injury. See Minor v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 819 F.2d 280, 282 n.3 (Fed. Cir. 1987). The General Counsel further explained that the Board has not determined whether Mr. Johnson’s separation was substantially related to his compensable injury or whether he has fully recovered or partially recovered from his compensable injury. Based on the legal analysis in his supplemental brief, the General Counsel requested that the court remand this case to allow the Board to further develop the record, as needed, and then to address those two issues— whether Mr. Johnson’s separation was substantially related to his compensable injury, and if so, whether he has fully or partially recovered from his compensable injury.

In light of the position taken by the Board’s General Counsel in the supplemental briefing, we agree that it is appropriate to vacate the Board’s order on appeal and remand this case for further proceedings before the Board on the two issues identified by the Board’s General Counsel: whether Mr. Johnson has shown that his separation was substantially related to his compensable injury and, if so, whether he has fully or partially recovered from his injury. Resolution of one or both of those issues will enable the Board to determine whether Mr. Johnson is entitled to restoration rights under 5 U.S.C. 8151 and the implementing regulations.
 Costs to Mr. Johnson.
- See more at: http://www.postalreporternews.net/2012/01/...20-years/#more-9285
11565
topcat1
01-12-2015
12:26 AM ET (US)
slingshot ,and all also check out my post on INJURED ON DUTY POST 29123, for all who may need it.
11564
topcat1
01-12-2015
12:21 AM ET (US)
Slingshot, back at you too, and all others making a big difference here for everyone. Thank you Slinghshot
11563
topcat1
01-12-2015
12:20 AM ET (US)
Slingshot, back at you too, and all others making a big difference here for everyone. Thank you Slinghshot ,and everyone here making a difference.
11562
SlingshotPerson was signed in when posted
01-11-2015
02:03 AM ET (US)
Employees Who Lie May be Subject to Stiffer

Penalties

1. LaChance v. Erickson, et.al. 118 S.Ct. 753

(1998).

The United States Supreme Court ruled that employees

who lie while being investigated for misconduct in

connection with their federal jobs can be given

stiffer penalties by the agencies for which they

work. According to the Supreme Court, the Unites

States Constitution does not prevent additional

punishment for people who lie. In the opinion of the

court, an employee may remain silent by invoking the

Fifth Amendment right against self incrimination, or

may simply answer a question honestly, but employees

do not enjoy any Constitutional right to lie to

federal agency investigators without consequences.

Although the court's decision dealt with federal

employees, that part of the court's ruling which

decries the existence of any Constitutional right to

lie could also apply to state and local employees.

The case is worth a second look by school districts

confronted by employees who lie during the course of

disciplinary investigations.
11561
SlingshotPerson was signed in when posted
01-10-2015
04:50 PM ET (US)
/m11548
Hey Top, I just noticed your post at 11548. Back at ya...I'm am only a small link in a long chaim, a chain that you also are a part of. Thanks for all you do too.

Subscribe :movingforward-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
11560
SlingshotPerson was signed in when posted
01-10-2015
03:34 PM ET (US)

An employee who was discriminated against, who was also removed without Due Process (i.e., without notice and an opportunity to respond), may have both EEO and constitutional claims. See, e.g., Ethnic Employees of the Library of Congress v. Boorstin, 751 F.2d 1405, 1415 (D.C. Cir. 1985); White v. Gen. Servs. Admin., 652 F.2d 913, 917 (9th Cir. 1981).
11559
SlingshotPerson was signed in when posted
01-10-2015
02:25 PM ET (US)
Group Description


Moving Forward is concerned for equality in federal employment. Most members have experienced painful hostile work environments created by discrimination. Many members have filed EEO, MSPB, OWCP, and OSC complaints, and suffered retaliation. Moving Forward provides advice (not legal) and support to members, and seeks to find the means to revamp the EEO, MSPB and OSC procedure and establish a federal bureaucracy free from discrimination.

Moving Forward members supports the Postal EEO Forum

Subscribe :movingforward-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
11558
SlingshotPerson was signed in when posted
01-05-2015
12:09 AM ET (US)
Due Process Clause

The guarantee of due process for all citizens requires the government to respect all rights, guarantees, and protections afforded by the U.S. Constitution and all applicable statutes before the government can deprive a person of life, liberty, or property. Due process essentially guarantees that a party will receive a fundamentally fair, orderly, and just judicial proceeding. While the Fifth Amendment only applies to the federal government, the identical text in the Fourteenth Amendment explicitly applies this due process requirement to the states as well.

Courts have come to recognize that two aspects of due process exist: procedural due process and substantive due process. Procedural due process aims to ensure fundamental fairness by guaranteeing a party the right to be heard, ensuring that the parties receive proper notification throughout the litigation, and ensures that the adjudicating court has the appropriate jurisdiction to render a judgment. Meanwhile, substantive due process has developed during the 20th century as protecting those right so fundamental as to be "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty."

Constitutional Claims on Behalf of Government Employees
http://bryanschwartzlaw.blogspot.com/2009/...s-on-behalf-of.html
11557
SlingshotPerson was signed in when posted
01-02-2015
06:57 PM ET (US)
Happy New Year
Top, I am sorry but I don't think I know enough about it to comment. I wish I could. I will check with a few folks that may know and see if I can get an answer for you. Thanks for having the confidence in me to ask me. I am always flattered when someone asks me a question about these issues because it gives me an opportunity to help out.
11556
topcat1
01-02-2015
04:30 PM ET (US)
slingshot how about it my post 11549 can i claim anything
11555
topcat1
12-29-2014
08:20 AM ET (US)
j/j still waiting for class action walker
^     All messages            11555-11570 of 11570  11539-11554 >>