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


Postal EEO Forum

^     All messages            11671-11686 of 11686  11655-11670 >>
02:37 PM ET (US)
The Union cannot charge you with anything. There is nothing inappropriate about paying a PTF Clerk Level 7 Lead Clerk pay when the work is performed.
10:39 PM ET (US)
If you follow orders and things are not right. Can you be punished for that? The situation is this. A PTF clerk is working High Level. Many PTF's had been doing that for more than 10 years. Now union want to investigate, because a PTF clerk should not be paying high level. Only the warranty of his 40 hours. They want to charge him with fraud. But the Postmaster and even the POOM manager fix TACS to pay the high level. Any sugestions before go to real Court?
06:36 PM ET (US)
To War Vet: Google Employment Law Attorney's for the biggest city near you. Then review their Web pages. You don't want any lawyer, you are interviewing them while the low life's only want sure bet cases. The learn as you go, be persistent and don't quit. Study www.eeoc.gov and everything you need to know on "How To" is there, yes you are. Smarter than a fifth grader so you can do this yourself. Top Ware
SlingshotPerson was signed in when posted
11:19 PM ET (US)
U.S. Department of Education Prevails In Case Where Employee's Disability Discrimination Charge Was Not the "But-For" Cause of the Department's Denial of an Official Accommodation

The U.S. Department of Education has prevailed in a case where a federal district court ruled that an employee's disability discrimination charge was not the "but-for" cause of the department's denial of an official accommodation.

In this case, the employee began working for the U.S. Department of Education in April of 1989. The employee alleges that he suffers from chronic pain, narcolepsy, and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), and that the department was aware of these disabilities when it hired him, and treated him as being handicapped by providing him with reasonable accommodation from approximately April 1, 1989 through November 22, 2004. At some point prior to October 1998, the employee took leave for some undisclosed reason, but subsequently engaged in "return-to-work" discussions with the department from October to December 1998. In December 1998, the employee returned to work pursuant to an agreement.

Several years later, in July and August of 2004, the employee alleges he disclosed some internal employee fraud to the Chief Financial Office and the Inspector General. In November 2004, the employee's supervisor notified the employee that the reasonable accommodations he had been provided would no longer be provided, prompting the employee to file a formal EEO complaint. The employee alleged that thereafter, it was increasingly difficult for him to secure a reasonable accommodation for his disabilities. The employee filed a formal complaint in March 2005, but that complaint ultimately was found to be without merit.

In September 2006, the employee sent an email to his then-current supervisor asking her for a reasonable accommodation, attaching medical documents that were between 9 and 16 years old, along with prior requests for reasonable accommodations that he had just located. Two weeks later, his supervisor replied that she was unable to locate any records granting him a reasonable accommodation. She stated that the department would consider his request for a reasonable accommodation upon receipt of updated, "i.e., last three months," medical documentation. The employee responded, among other things, that prior agency officials had determined he required a reasonable accommodation, that she had no right to revoke that accommodation, and that he had previously responded to requests for medical records.

The supervisor replied by stating that she had no record of an agency determination that the employee qualified for a reasonable accommodation and that without up-to-date medical information, she would not provide him with a reasonable accommodation. The record showed that the employee never submitted current medical documentation, as requested. The department provided evidence that no other employee under the new supervisor was granted a reasonable accommodation without medical documentation.

Nonetheless, the new supervisor authorized the employee to be given a private office and to be permitted to work at home on an "as needed" flex schedule, as a matter of "administrative discretion." Despite the work adjustments, the employee persisted with his claim that the department retaliated against him in violation of the Rehabilitation Act, and his case ended up before the District of Columbia federal district court.

In last month's decision, the D.C. federal district court explained that it is undisputed that the employee engaged in protected activity when he filed a formal complaint in March 2005 alleging disability discrimination arising from the department's refusal to continue existing accommodations for his disabilities. It is also undisputed, the court stated, that from 2005 to 2010, during his current supervisor's tenure, the department (1) did not provide the accommodations allegedly authorized by his previous supervisor; (2) asked the employee to submit current medical documentation as a precondition to processing a new accommodation request; and (3) declined to process or approve the employee's accommodation request in the absence of such information. The court went on to say that despite her demands for current medical documentation, the new supervisor authorized requested adjustments to the employee's working conditions as an matter of administrative discretion.

Thus, the court stated, the pending question in the case is whether the department made it more difficult for the employee to obtain a reasonable accommodation of his disability solely because he filed a discrimination charge in March 2005, before his current supervisor came on board.

Based on the evidence, the court found an insufficient connection between the March 2005 discrimination charge and the new supervisor's request for current medical documentation. The court explained that the new supervisor wanted to formalize the employee's situation - obtain up-to-date medical information, consider accommodations, and put it all in writing.

Thus, to prevail in this case - where the department filed a motion for summary judgment - the court stated that the employee must proffer specific facts showing that a genuine issue exists for trial. Here, the court concluded, the employee offered no specific facts to support his burden of persuasion that his engagement in protected activity in March 2005 was the "but-for" reason the department refused an official accommodation, rather than his own failure to provide current medical documentation as a precondition to a reasonable accommodation.

Accordingly, the court granted the department's motion for summary judgment.

The case is Gard v. U.S. Department of Education, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Civil Action No. 07-2303 (RMC), November 23, 2010.
08:02 AM ET (US)
Whatever we are posting here messages, forum, posts whatever they are being modified quickly and are being removed within no time. I just wanna know exact reason behind this. Even the kettyediting com faced similar situation and are in search of new sites like these!
NYC Wiseguy
08:15 AM ET (US)
War Vet. You are entitled to Merit System Protection Board rights. This is a much quicker procedure than EEOC. I represented carriers in both forums and favor the MSPB. Management must prove their case with MSPB while in the EEOC the burden falls upon you to prove your case. J.R. Prichett is a great rep.
This is a fine forum for help to battle postal bullies. I educated myself in the EEOC and MSPB arenas and enjoyed performing rectumologies on management assholes.
Good luck with your case and if you require further info, c'mon back again.
cleark d
07:12 PM ET (US)
Hi, I did too many eeo but all looks like support post office.so who can stand for employee.If you have any phone number or web side somebody can guide for EEO please provide me. Thanks.
01:49 PM ET (US)
War Vet... Check post 11674 - J.R. Prichett (Postal Employee Advocate.) I highly recommend!!
War Vet
01:19 PM ET (US)
Is there a place to find lawyers that are known to handle EEO cases for the employees of the post office. Because it seems as soon as they find out its against the Post Office they don't want to take your case. They say that there's a zero tolerance policy on discrimination, harassment and creating a hostile work environment and that if you feel you have been a victim in any of these things, you should file an EEO. Well silly me I thought that the EEOC was supposed to be my representative against post office but boy was I wrong. I'm a Veteran of the Operation Desert Storm/Desert Shield war of 1990. I would greatly appreciate any help or suggestions. I'm a soldier to my soul and will not give up even if I have to represent myself. Thanks in advance for any input.
SlingshotPerson was signed in when posted
08:46 PM ET (US)
In Southerland v. Department of Defense, 2011 MSPB 92 (October 5, 2011), it interpreted the Americans With Disabilities Act Amendments Act (ADAAA) and held that if an employee is not challenging the agency's failure to make reasonable accommodation and does not require a reasonable accommodation, the analysis should proceed under the “regarded as” prong of the definition of disability, which does not require a showing of an impairment that substantially limits a major life activity or a record of such an impairment. It also held that a “but for” test applies under the ADAAA, i.e., that the employee must show that but for the disability, the agency would not have taken the appealed action, and the burden of persuasion does not shift to the agency to show that it would have taken the action regardless of disability, even if the appellant produces some evidence that disability was one motivating factor in the adverse employment action. In Bowman v. Department of Agriculture, 113 M.S.P.R. 214 (2010), the Board also adopted the “but for” test for claims of age discrimination made under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. In Davis v. Department of the Interior, 114 M.S.P.R. 527 (2010), addressing generally the requirements of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act but specifically race and sex discrimination, it clarified that to meet the burden of proof that the agency’s action was discriminatory, the appellant need not introduce evidence of a similarly situated employee not in his or her protected group who was treated more favorably, but may rely on anyevidence giving rise to an inference that the unfavorable treatment at issue was due to illegal discrimination.
04:19 AM ET (US)
Thanks Postal Employee Advocate and NYC Wiseguy. I will pass the information and the CCA will be contacting J.R. Pritchett when he receive his hearing date. I know it will take some time for a hearing date but as soon he gets one he will notify you all. Thanks again.
NYC Wiseguy
04:41 PM ET (US)
Thanks JR
Postal Employee AdvocatePerson was signed in when posted
08:18 PM ET (US)
NYC Wiseguy
J.R. Pritchett, Administrative Law Representative
(208) 254-9196
09:36 PM ET (US)
Agency Timeliness claim remedy

29 CFR 1614.604 (d)

1614.604 Filing and computation of time.
     (a) All time periods in this part that are stated in terms of days
 are calendar days unless otherwise stated.
     (b) A document shall be deemed timely if it is delivered in person
 or postmarked before the expiration of the applicable filing period,
 or, in the absence of a legible postmark, if it is received by mail
 within five days of the expiration of the applicable filing period.
     (c) The time limits in this part are subject to waiver, estoppel
 and equitable tolling.
     (d) The first day counted shall be the day after the event from
 which the time period begins to run and the last day of the period
 shall be included, unless it falls on a Saturday, Sunday or Federal
 holiday, in which case the period shall be extended to include the
 next business day.

This will negates Agency dismissals for claims of not being timely.
NYC Wiseguy
11:53 AM ET (US)
Postal Employee Advocate....please list a contact number of e-mail address for me. A CCA needs our help. Thank you
08:49 AM ET (US)
I’ve been searching for some decent stuff on the subject and haven't had any luck up until this point, You just got a new biggest fan!..
 Political News
^     All messages            11671-11686 of 11686  11655-11670 >>